done the administration and the foreign aid program an incalculable service. Had this service been performed in previous years, it would have saved the American people billions of dollars out of the more than $100 billion which have been spent on foreign aid, much of it squandered. It would have made our foreign aid infinitely more effective and would have left the world in a much better condition than it is now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD the article entitled "The New Know-Nothings," written by Joseph Alsop, and the editorial entitled "Sermon on Aid," both published in the Washington Post of today, November 15, 1963.

There being no objection, the article and editorial were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SERMON ON AID

President Kennedy used the pulpit of his office yesterday to deliver a powerful sermon on the need for foreign aid. He did not dispute the constitutional right of Congress to decide how much money should be appropriated. But he did point out that the expenditures involved are hardly crushing, that foreign aid is "a valuable arm" of U.S. policy, and that in the end it is the Presidentnot Members of Congress-who is held accountable for the success or failure of our diplomacy.

The pity is that the President did not make his forceful statements weeks ago in a full-scale address to the country. There were clear storm warnings that this year would see a bitter fight over foreign aid. Yet here, as in other areas of controversy, there has been a reluctance to commit the

full resources of the Presidency to a drive for

the administration's programs. The sermon comes late after the ushers have already passed the collection plate.

What Congress has done to the aid program is, in our opinion, wrong and foolish. Not only has Congress carved to the marrow the President's budget request; the Senate has also implanted a series of dogmatic restrictions on the use of aid. Surely Mr. Kennedy is only stating the obvious in reminding Congress that the world changes swiftly and that spiteful use of aid as a club usually does not have the intended effect. Yet the congressional onslaught was not simply the act of a small and willful mi

nority. The mayhem on aid found majority

support in Congress-and no doubt has majority support in the country. It is no accident that the Peace Corps received generous treatment in the House at the same time

foreign aid was being hacked to bits in the Senate. Both actions express a consensus on Capitol Hill and in the country.

It is easy to make Congress the scapegoatespecially when the Senate goes on an irresponsible binge and appears to dictate dayto-day policy to the Executive. But the mischievous action of Congress cannot wholly absolve the President of his past inaction. Whose job is it to disclose the purposes of American policy, to explain in plausible terms to the man in the street the American stake in using aid to help buttress the independence of remote countries? When Mr. Kennedy says that he needs foreign aid, he has to persuade the electorate no less than Congress.

Mr. Kennedy's sermon in and of itself was admirable. It may yet be possible to expunge some of the worst features of the Senate legislation in conference with the

House. But the result thus far tells something not only about the frailties of Congress. It also tells us that more vigorous leadership on the part of the administration

is essential to the achievement of its objecis essential to the achievement of its objectives.

THE NEW KNOW-NOTHINGS

(By Joseph Alsop)

In the tedious but crucial struggle over the foreign aid bill, the old tradition of national-minded bipartisanship has been saving President Kennedy's bacon.

In the preliminary wrestling with the bill in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the senior members of the majority and minority, Senators WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, of Arkansas, and BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER, of Iowa, acted together as partners.

Senator HICKENLOOPER is not widely known for his reluctance to take a good, hard, partisan whack at the Democrats whenever he sees a chance to do so. He thought that the foreign aid authorization that Senator FULBRIGHT wanted the committee to approve-$4.2 billion-was a bit on the high side. But when FULBRIGHT argued that "we have got to give them something to cut," HICKENLOOPER loyally went along.

Again, when the leadership belatedly discovered the power of the new surge of knownothingism in the Senate, a hasty strategy meeting to discuss the best blocking tactics was strictly bipartisan, and was even held in the Republican cloakroom. The majority and minority leaders, Senators MIKE MANSFIELD, of Montana, and EVERETT DIRKSEN, Of Illinois, joined with FULBRIGHT and HICKENLOOPER in the decision to make a voluntary preliminary cut of $385 million in the committee total, in order to forestall worse cuts by the new know-nothings.

Since then, through the long, squalid, and still unfinished struggle on the Senate floor, DIRKSEN, HICKENLOOPER, and a good many other Republicans have continued to stand four square for national mindedness and bipartisanship.

Meanwhile, the President's bill has been under bitter, persistent partisan attack by

Democratic Senators, with a group of liberal Democrats, headed by the ineffable Senator WAYNE MORSE, of Oregon, leading the attackers. Even that famous Republican conservative, Senator BARRY GOLDWATER, of Arizona, had been kinder to the foreign aid program than the new Democratic know-nothings, for he has at least been absent for almost every key vote.

The most dramatic vote, though not the closest, was on MORSE's motion to gut the bill for good and all, by recommitting it to the Foreign Relations Committee. Twentyeight other Senators voted with the Oregon paragon, and 20 of them were Democrats.

velopment Loan Fund by $25 million, car

Another Morse amendment, to cut the De

ried by a vote of 42 to 40, and 24 of the Morse adherents were Democrats. Embittered southerners, like RICHARD RUSSELL, of Georgia, and HARRY F. BYRD, of Virginia, have, of course, followed MORSE, gladly yielding him the leadership on this occasion.

MORSE'S deputy commander in the attack has been the old New Dealer from Alaska,

Senator ERNEST GRUENING. So-called liberals who have joined MORSE are FRANK CHURCH, of Idaho; ALBERT GORE, of Tennessee; the former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the Kennedy Cabinet, ABE RIBICOFF, of Connecticut; STUART SYMINGTON, of Missouri; and STEPHEN YOUNG, of Ohio; plus HENRY JACKSON, of Washington, and WILLIAM PROXMIRE, of Wisconsin, on the fund cut.

Besides trying to gut the foreign aid bill in every other way, the new know-nothings have put forward an astonishing number of backseat driving amendments. "Some people," Senator HICKENLOOPER has said grimly, "want to turn the U.S. Senate into another committee on the conduct of the war, which helped the South more than Robert E. Lee."

The result, beyond much doubt, would be a half-crippled foreign aid program. The

If the effort in Vietnam is not weakened, all other military aid programs will have to be cut drastically. Thus old and tried allies which cannot otherwise afford their present levels of defense, like Turkey, Greece, Nationalist China, and South Korea, will be hit where it hurts most-apparently because Senators SYMINGTON and RIBICOFF think it is a bad bargain to add this strength to our side at one-tenth the cost of an equal number of American troops.

Finally, development loans, which offer the best hope of future progress and are also to be repaid in the end, will be cut to the point of grave damage to American foreign policy. In short, the national interest is under heavy attack. It would be more comprehensible if the attack had a partisan motive; but peevishness, alas, is the only motive now identi

fiable.

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

Mr. GRUENING. I am happy to yield. Mr. MORSE. I congratulate the Senator from Alaska on his penetrating analysis of both the Washington Post editorial and the inexcusable, ignorant column by Mr. Alsop. The country is greatly indebted to the Senator from Alaska for the strong leadership that he extended to those of us who have fought during the past 3 weeks to try to bring to an end some of the worst inefficiencies, waste, and causes of international corruption that are embedded and ingrained in the foreign aid program.

Probably the Senate will complete action on the bill today. But this will not be the last time there will be action on the bill. If the conference report contains any attempt to undo what the Senate has done, there will be a further debate at great length, so that the American people may again have the facts presented to them as to how they are being rooked by the foreign aid program.

It is with sadness in my heart that I find that my President is making statements and speeches following that line on foreign aid, but is not uttering a word in those speeches by way of a pledge to the taxpayers that he intends to do something about the inefficiencies, waste, and inexcusable wrongs that are embedded in the foreign aid bill.

I spoke yesterday on the basis of a foot-high compilation of reports from the Comptroller General of the United States, which pointed out the shocking waste of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in the sinkholes of foreign aid. I most respectfully ask my President: "When are you going to do something about correcting those wrongs, which are a matter of proof, in regard to foreign aid?"

The President will get my support for a good foreign aid program, but he will not get my support, and does not have my support, for a continuation of the kind of foreign aid that he is talking about, and to which he referred in his speech in New York City last Friday and his news conference yesterday, because

I

I am not opposed to foreign aid. favor it. I have favored it all along. However, at various times I have sought to present amendments which I hoped would cure some of the deficiencies of the program. Some of these were accepted in the Senate, over the opposition of the leadership, but later were deleted in conference, when the State Department and AID officials rushed up and said they would ruin the program.

In the past 3 weeks, under the leadership of the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE], the first serious attempts to debate and to reform were made, and they were successful. They did not go quite as far as they might have, because some of the proposals submitted by the Senator from Oregon and some of the proposals submitted by me were not accepted, although some of them came close to being accepted, and thus showed that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the way the program has been administered.

The amendments which have been adopted are most desirable, but I consider them only a beginning.

I hope that with the leadership the Senator from Oregon has demonstrated and with the clear indications of congressional leadership during the debate and in connection with the action taken on the amendments, we shall have a better program.

I believe we shall have a better program next year; but we must constantly be vigilant to be sure that the agencies involved carry out the intent of Congress. I believe it would be very objectionable if some of the activities now administered by the AID agency were to be transferred to the Army or to other Government agencies, and thus be concealed. Congress must retain control of the pro

gram.

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

Mr. GRUENING. I yield.

Mr. MORSE. I am glad the Senator from Alaska has made that statement, because that matter will be the subject of one of the great debates next year, inasmuch as the maneuver now being at tempted is to turn the military aid program over to the Pentagon. The great issue is, How much longer are we going to let the Pentagon-determine so much of our foreign policy?

The State Department is really a split entity, these days, because much of our foreign aid is, in fact and in effect, being

State Department. If we let the Pentagon get its hands on militiary aidwhich is inseperable from U.S. foreign policy-we shall be in for very serious trouble.

Bad as the State Department is at the present time, we must require it to administer all foreign policy, and not permit it to divide its obligations and duties with the Pentagon.

Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator from Oregon supports

my view-which I know he has held

that Congress must retain control of, or must continue its efforts to control, the foreign aid program. At this ses sion, that has been done for the first time; and of course that requires maintaining supervision over the military part of the program.

In connection with the next foreign

aid bill, we must also be sure that the lending functions are continued by U.S. agencies, not turned over to international agencies over which Congress would have no real control. So if a move is made to stop development loans as a part of the program over which Congress will have jurisdiction, I warn that such an attempt must be stopped, because if it were to be successful, we would lose complete control over that part of the program. Such functions should not be turned over to international lending agencies, which already have an important part which already have an important part in the program; but all lending functions now under the foreign aid program should be maintained there, where they will be under the vigilant and alert eye of Congress. I hope that will be done.

In

I made a study, for the Government Operations Committee, of the programs in 10 countries in the Middle East. the case of two of them, I found the program was well carried out and was purposeful, and that there was a clear understanding of what was to be accomplished. In those cases I recommended plished. In those cases I recommended that the program be both continued and increased. I make this statement beincreased. I make this statement because in the past it has been assumed that anyone who was at all critical of the foreign aid program was opposed to foreign aid. However, that is not the case. I shall support the foreign aid program whenever I can, when it is sound and reasonably and effectively administered, and not only does not squander istered, and not only does not squander millions and billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars, but actually produces results which are effective in connection with our national plans and purposes.

But the aid we have given Sukarno is a positive scandal and is disgraceful. We have built up a Frankenstein monster in the Far East; and we have done much the same in the Middle East, with Nasser.

I am hopeful that the amendments the Senate has adopted, which will stop the giving of our aid to aggressors, and particularly to Indonesia, in connection with the foreign aid program, will be carried out and administered rigidly and correctly by the administration.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, in the Washington Post of November 11 there

was published an article, written by the columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak. The article, entitled "The Senate's Scandal," is clearly both cruel and unfair. For one thing, the article includes the following statement:

Kindly, well-meaning Senator MIKE MANSFIELD, of Montana, has been a tragic mistake as majority leader.

The article contains other statements

along the same line; and they would cause a reader-if he did not know the facts to gain the impression that an incipient revolt is developing among the the Senate against the so-called poor members of the Democratic Party in leadership of the Senator from Montana.

But I believe the article completely

misses the point, which is that there is

nothing wrong with the leadership in the Senate, but there is a great deal of trou

ble with the leadership in the White

House.

In this connection, I invite attention to another article which is in somewhat filed criticism of the Senate leadership is the same category, insofar as unadjusti

concerned. This article was written by Doris Fleeson, and was published in the Washington Star of November 13.

In an article written by David Lawrence, and published on the same date in

the Washington Star, the following conclusion is drawn: "that the people of this country, through their congressional representatives, disapprove of the legislative program proposed by the Democratic Party's national leader and want a change in leadership."

I believe Mr. Lawrence has more correctly called attention to the real problem. The leadership in the White House has been lucky to have had a majority leader in the Senate such as the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD], and is lucky to have gotten what it received during the first 2 years-the honeymoon years-of the New Frontier, and should not be at all surprised to find that the honeymoon is over now that the people back home have begun to realize what has been hitting them and what will hit them for some years to come, as a result of the billion dollar deficit spending programs which have been requested by the White House.

Although I have opposed some of them, I think recognition should be given to the fact that the majority leader, the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD), has been a "good soldier," and has done a rather effective job of getting through the Senate the spending programs that really count.

There has been considerable criticism of Congress. I, for one, do not object to a certain amount of criticism, if criticism is due. But too many persons who are too ready and willing to snipe at Congress apparently do not realize that there are three branches of the Federal Government-the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Some of them recognize that there is a judicial branch when the Supreme Court hands down a decision involving the recital of prayers in the public schools. But as between the executive branch and the legislative branch, I fear there are too many people who are too much impressed by the

Madison Avenue techniques utilized in statements coming out of the White House, as a result of which they overlook the shortcomings there.

The volume of White House-sponsored measures submitted in the last 22 years, all carrying the label of "urgent," has been multitudinous. It has been beyond the capacity of any Congress to digest, much less the ability of the people of the United States to pay for.

There was no mandate from the people for such a program. President Kennedy was elected by less than 50 percent of the votes of the people who voted in 1960. For some strange reason or other, some of his advisers seemed to conclude that there was a mandate from the people for an overwhelming deluge of vast new Federal spending programs and increases in existing programs. There was no such mandate at all. Members of Congress are more directly connected with the feelings of the people in their districts and States; and they know that the people have had too much already. It took them 21⁄2 years to wake up to what is hitting them.

I have been pointing out that if we merely consider the inflation that the sum of $21 billion of deficit spending since January 1, 1961, has produced, which amounts to about $19.5 billion, and apply it to the people throughout the United States in terms of sales taxes, Senators will find that their people in the various States have been hit by sales taxes and indirect sales taxes ranging all the way from 2 to 42 percent.

People wonder why the cost of groceries, the cost of housing, the cost of building new schools, and the cost of State and local government are going up. They can look to the New Frontier for the answer, and particularly to Members of Congress who have engaged in spending billions of dollars more than we take in. I do not think it should be overlooked that the White House has been part and parcel of the entire operation. The White House would have taken more if Congress would have given it

more.

Let us face the fact that it takes people a while to realize what is hitting them. It has now taken them about 21⁄2 years; and we trust that by the election a year from now quite a few million more will be realizing what has hit them and will vote accordingly.

An article by the distinguished columnist, William White, appeared in the Washington Evening Star on November 11. The article is entitled "Congress Needs Defenders." Mr. White expressed concern over the fact that there have not been enough Members of the legislative branch of the Government speaking out in defense of some of the criticisms that have been thrown at

Congress, particularly this year, and suggested that there ought to be more defense of Congress.

I should like to say that I have done my share of pointing out where Congress is to blame and pointing out where the White House is to blame. I have done my share of defending Congress as an independent legislative branch of the Government.

One of my great disappointments since I have been Senator has been to see the I have been Senator has been to see the Senate, which historically has existed as a great independent legislative body of our Federal Government, degenerate pretty much into a rubberstamp Senate. pretty much into a rubberstamp Senate. There have been a few exceptions. The Senate's rejection, on a procedural point, of the Department's ill-devised, ill-conceived, poorly presented, and highly partisanly presented urban affairs proposal, the Senate's rejection of the unfair Kennedy medicare proposal, known as the King-Anderson bill, which was at tempted by way of an amendment a year ago, and now the Senate's treatment of the foreign aid bill, are about the only three exceptions during the last nearly 3 years in which the Senate has really existed as an independent legislative branch of the Federal Government.

The Senate and the House are to be criticized for not adhering a little more closely to the traditional separation of powers. I am ready, willing, and able to criticize those bodies for not doing so. I am also ready, willing, and able to criticize some of the rules which I consider obsolete for effective management of our legislative business. I have not been around here so long that I have become so enamored with every type of rule that we have as to think that no rule can be changed or abolished. Some rules are desirable. It is desirable to have a brake in the form of a better than 50-percent vote for cloture. There was quite an argument on that question early this year. Some Senators said that 51 Senators ought to be enough to choke off debate. Some said that it should require two-thirds of the Senators present and voting to choke off debate. That is the present rule. Some said it ought to be three-fifths, or 60 Senators. All kinds of combinations were proposed.

The point was made by the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY] that more than half the Senators thought there ought to be some change in the rules. We never could agree on what the rules changes should be. I had my own little plan. I said that I favored a three-fifths rule, provided at least a majority of Members of both parties were included in that three-fifths. I am not about to submit to a change in the rules to permit a Senate composed of 67 Democrats and 33 Republicans to have debate choked off by a vote of 60 Democrats. If 60 Senators, composed of a majority of the Democrats and a majority of the Republicans, desire cloture, that is satisfactory. But to think of choking off debate by a vote of all the Members of one party is to me something that would violate the traditional protection of minority rights which the Senate stands for.

I am not in favor of some of the proposed rule changes in respect to cloture, but I do favor a change along the lines I have mentioned.

There is the rule of germaneness which the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE] and many others, including myself, have sought to change. The proposal is on the calendar. Whether it will ever be called up remains to be seen. It is a sensible rule. It

would provide that during the first 3 hours of debate in the afternoon the discussion must be on the subject that is pending. After that a Senator could talk about anything. We do not have such a rule. As a result, with the Mundt amendment now pending, discussion could take place on almost any subject. What I am now saying has nothing to do with the pending business, nor has much of what has been already said this afternoon. That rule should be changed. I believe that the resolution proposed by the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE] and other Senators would greatly speed up the legislative process in the Senate, because if the Pastore proposal were now in effect, we would be about finished with the amendment, and we would probably be through the foreign aid bill by 3 o'clock. Then if any Senator wished to talk about anything else, he could remain here and do so. That is a change that should be made.

Of course, there is the perennial question of whether there should be a Joint Committee on the Budget. For the past 2 or 3 years the able Senator from Arkansas [Mr. MCCLELLAN] and approximately 60 other Senators, including myself, have cosponsored a bill which has passed the Senate unanimously. It has gone to the House, and there it has never seen the light of day. That bill would provide for the creation of a Joint Committee on the Budget. There is a Joint Committee on Internal Revenue to take care of the finance side of things, and it works very well. When we are dealing with subjects as complicated as revenues, taxes, and tariffs, we need a thoroughly competent staff, and we need a harmonious working group of Senators and Representatives.

So those have come along pretty well in the area of tax legislation. But when it comes to spending, we really have trouble because there is no organization in the legislative branch that can possibly cope with the Bureau of the Budget, in the executive branch. On taxes, we have the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue, which can hold its own in analyzing the proposals of the Treasury Department; but we have no control over the Bureau of the Budget. It is about time we had a little control over our budget. It is about time to start putting our revenues and spending into balance.

omists who believe it is sophisticated to Although I know there are some econhave inflation as a means to achieve prosperity, the fact remains that the great bulk of the American people believe-thank goodness-in the "Puritan ethic" toward which Dr. Heller, the Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers has such a disdainful attitude. But these are changes that should be made, and until they are made I shall be ready, willing and able to criticize the legislative branch, of which I am a Member.

Let us get a proper perspective of the situation, as far as what has been going on this year is concerned. Let us recognize that Members of Congress are fairly close to the people back home. They are closer than the President of the

United States. They know when the people are beginning to be disturbed. They know that if they do not acquiesce to a reasonable extent in the people's concern, either by voting the way the people want them to vote or by being able to persuade the people to change their minds, they will not be reelected to Congress.

I have supported the foreign aid bill for each of the past 2 years. I shall have something to say about the bill before final passage, which we hope will come today. I propose to support the foreign aid bill this year.

I have received a good amount of correspondence from people indicating their great disaffection with the foreign aid program. I do not have many letters saying "chop off foreign aid altogether," although all of us have received some of those. Most people, I believe, are convinced that foreign aid is a proper part of our national policy. They want to see a dollar's value for a dollar spent. I do not believe that we in Congress have been doing as good a job on that point as we should have done. We are to be criticized for this; but when we start to do a job, the criticism should not be leveled at us but should be leveled at those who have brought this situation upon the Congress; namely, the administrators and those who have been asking for it, and that includes the President of the United States. All the talk in the past few days about the shortsightedness of Congress and particularly the Senate in chopping down the amounts of foreign aid is falling on deaf ears back home. I believe most people are beginning to say, "Thank goodness, Congress finally is starting to exercise its prerogative of serving as a true check and a true balance on the executive branch."

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the articles to which I have referred may be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 11, 1963] THE SENATE'S SCANDAL

(By Rowland Evans and Robert Novak) The real scandal of the Senate isn't the Bobby Baker case or the ethical code of Senators. It's the Senate's ever-widening leadership void.

What Connecticut's Senator THOMAS DODD dared blurt out on the Senate floor last week, other Senators have been whispering in the cloakrooms for months. Kindly, well-meaning Senator MIKE MANSFIELD, of Montana, has been a tragic mistake as majority leader.

The all-year session of Congress won't produce either the tax bill or the civil rights bill. Appropriations bills that should have been passed last summer may actually be carried into 1964, throwing Federal agencies into utter confusion. And although the Senate is considerably more liberal than the House, it has become the real stumbling block for the Kennedy program.

Much of the blame rests with MANSFIELD'S unique theories of leadership. He sees the majority leader as an administrator, neither prying into individual Senators' views nor trying to change them.

Accordingly, when MANSFIELD replaced LYNDON B. JOHNSON as Democratic leader in

1961, he began to dismantle the elaborate intelligence and persuasion machinery constructed by JOHNSON. The once formidable staff of the majority leader shrunk to a pitiful handful.

Moreover, MANSFIELD'S theory fed upon itself. As his sightless and voiceless operation predictably gave birth to disorderly fiascoes in the Senate, he increasingly withdrew within himself.

MANSFIELD is now nearly isolated. He has regular contact only with two or three conservative Senators (who have little interest in promoting the Kennedy program). There is almost no communication between MANSFIELD and Minnesota's HUBERT HUMPHREY, the assistant majority leader.

In his isolation, MANSFIELD got the current

foreign aid debate off to a bad start by proposing a cut in funds without consulting key members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has not conferred with Arizona's Senator CARL HAYDEN, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, about the critical slowdown in money bills. He mistakenly got the impression that Virginia's Senator HARRY F. BYRD, chairman of the Finance Committee, had agreed to finish action on the tax cut bill within 6 weeks (when BYRD really had no such intention).

Worse yet is the way MANSFIELD'S overcourteous attention to the wishes of other Senators gives de facto control of the Senate to any Member who wants to impose his own schedule on his colleagues. That often turns out to be WAYNE MORSE, of Oregon.

Though blessed with a 2-to-1 Democratic majority, MANSFIELD defers repeatedly to Republican wishes-an attitude which helps make Minority Leader EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, of Illinois, the most powerful man in the Senate today (and one of MANSFIELD'S ardent admirers).

The confusion is compounded by the fall of Bobby Baker, who as the Senate majority's secretary often was MANSFIELD's only link to reality and the rest of the Senators.

Rank-and-file Democratic Senators reveled in their new-found freedom when MANSFIELD first replaced JOHNSON, but their smiles faded long ago.

They also yearn for a little old-fashioned publican Senator JOHN WILLIAMS, of Delapartisanship. When MANSFIELD lauded Reware, for exposing details of the Baker case, two Democrats silently stalked off the floor in disgust.

But this doesn't mean a plot to dethrone MANSFIELD is in the making. That's not the way of the world's most exclusive club.

The Congress is experiencing something to which it is not accustomed, and that is just plain boredom.

It is on the defensive more than usual, but criticism is par for the course, and Members are adjusted to it. They ride out attacks and even scandal with considerable indifference, provided they feel they are accomplishing something.

But it is mid-November, and they are marking time on the annual appropriations chores and dawdling over what was, at the start, mostly leftover programs. The result is creeping ennui which is expressing itself in the remarkable outbreak of personalities in the Senate and frequently a reckless indifference to the consequences of the Members' own acts.

Senator DODD, Connecticut Democrat, apologized rather comically for breaking the club rules with attacks on his own and the Republican leadership. Yet out of the resulting ooze emerges a clear notion of the com

plaint heard in ever-rising volume. The complaint comes from moderates as well as liberals, and even some experienced conservatives acknowledge misgivings that the "ins" of both parties will eventually suffer at the polls.

The complaint is itself a paradox. It amounts simply to a cry for leadership. Reminders that strong leadership from the President and party leaders is always resisted with cries of "dictator" are brushed aside. It would appear that what is wanted is at least an appearance of conviction and struggle.

Congress misses those impatient men who breathed down their necks and demanded "hurry, hurry, hurry." A veteran moderate who has served in House and Senate voices the pervading lament in these terms:

"The President is working hard, but he does not make us feel that he cares intensely, and we must care, too. Sure, the public likes him and his family and he will get by next year, but what about us? We are taking the rap for his desire to get on with everybody.

"Even the calendar is turned against us by our own leaders. They are so eager to please us as individuals they make it next to impossible for us to function as a legislative body. We anticipate a vote and then learn that MANSFIELD has promised we will not have it for a week so some Members can go home. We are repeatedly in session when a private promise means nothing can happen."

A Democratic Senator who doggedly resisted the then majority leader, LYNDON JOHNSON, at some cost to himself, still says that JOHNSON was imperious, unfair and played favorites but adds: "I wish I had him back."

The situation on the Hill raises the old question of the President's commitment to his ideal of a strong Presidency and to his program. His aids are already in print with explanations of the limits of his power, and it is hard to discern even now any real dent in the complacency of the executive branch.

THE PRESIDENT AND HIS PARTY-DEMOCRATS CONTROLLING CONGRESS CALLED UNWILLING TO ENACT LEADER'S PROGRAM

(By David Lawrence) President Kennedy would be overwhelmingly defeated if the presidential election were held today and the standards of judgment and the system prevailing in other English-speaking democracies-such as Canada or Great Britain-were applied.

For the Democratic Party, which holds 67 percent of the membership of the Senate and almost 60 percent of the House of Representatives, has failed after more than 10 months of continuous sessions to pass the legislative program proposed by its titular leader, President Kennedy.

The truth is the chosen representatives of the Democratic Party have been unwilling to use their clear majority of votes to adopt the recommendations of the President, either because the voters of the country do not approve or because the legislators have themselves mistakenly interpreted the wishes of the people.

When a party in power under the parliamentary system fails, it is customary for the Nation to turn that party out of power in an election called whenever the voters really demand it. Under the American system, there is no such way to fix responsibility. It cannot be determined immediately whether the President is at fault for having failed to exercise effective leadership within his party. Nor can it be determined for 2 years after an election whether Congress has really been heeding the voices of the citizens in disapproval of the President's policies or whether the Democrats in Congress have misconstrued

the wishes of the people in holding up many of the measures proposed by the executive branch of the Government.

It has often been argued that, in the United States, a President who cannot control his own party in Congress can look to the opposition party to gain enough votes so that a coalition will form a majority and adopt his program. But the fact is that an unorganized coalition of Republicans and Democrats in both Houses of Congress has actually emerged on several controversial questions as an opposition majority to block the passage or demand substantial changes in pending measures before they can even be considered for passage.

The Democratic Party in Congress today, moreover, not only possesses a clear majority but controls every committee in both Houses. In committees, too, a combination of two parties can block action and actually is doing so today in many instances. So, for all practical purposes, the coalition majority is, in effect, repudiating the policies of the Democratic Party leader-President Kennedy.

In other countries, this repudiation would be accepted as sufficient reason for asking the country by its votes to decide at once whether a new prime minister should be chosen from the opposition party or whether the existing majority party should be given a vote of confidence and permitted to keep

its leader or select a new one from its own party. Thus, the people do the deciding, and they hold the incumbent party or its leader

responsible.

Today in the United States, however, the Nation has no clear idea of who is responsible for the stalemate in Government. The concept of Presidential leadership is fuzzy. The talk in the press is that President Kennedy is popular, and the public opinion polls are cited to support the idea. But a foreign observer would ask how a President can be popular if he cannot command a majority in the National Legislature.

In off-year elections, when the names of the presidential nominees are not on the ballot, a clear-cut example of a mandate is rarely furnished by the electorate. Indeed, in the November 1962, congressional elections there were more Republican than Democratic votes cast in the regions outside the solid South, but the Democratic Party nevertheless furnished enough Members to make virtually a two-thirds majority. Yet everybody knew that southern Congressmen don't agree with the administration's viewpoint.

When, however, the Democrats retained their majorities in both Houses of Congress in the national election in 1962, this was hailed by Mr. Kennedy's supporters as a victory for him. Yet today-12 months later the Democratic Party has failed to get the support of its majority in both Houses to pass the legislation the President has demanded. The conclusion is that the people of this country, through their congressional representatives, disapprove of the legislative program proposed by the Democratic Party's national leader and want a change in leadership.

This strictly bipartisan assault comes from an odd collection. There are political theorists who believe both the Senate and House are mere horse-and-buggy nuisances which should be retired to some dusty national museum while the White House-so long as they like its current occupant-runs all the show. There are violently pro-Kennedy men who think anything the President proposes is unarguably good and thus that any congressional resistance, or even delay in meeting his demands, is unarguably obstructive and evil.

There are other well-intentioned people who, through long brainwashing, have come to believe that congressional performance is to be measured like industria' production or the sales rate of liverwurst at the supermarket. So many thingajimmies off the assembly line this month; so many packets of sausage across the supermarket counter.

OVERLOOKED OBLIGATION

In many minds the sole standard of congressional achievement has come to be how

many bills have been passed in what period. This extraordinary foolishness wholly overlooks the fact that negative inaction on unwise proposals is quite as important as positive action on wise proposals and also happens to be the constitutional obligation of an independent constitutional body called Congress.

And, finally and most important, there is a highly articulate splinter group within Congress itself which for 2 years has been making its own wild attacks on the very constitutional body to which it asked to be

elected.

These fellows in nearly every case are disgruntled legislative failures in a forum where their political abilities fall short of their ambitions. Unable to impress their colleagues, they look about for the reason. Invariably, they find that reason not within themselves but within the shortcomings of Congress itself. It is archaic. Its rules are backwardlooking. It needs vast, if somewhat ambiguous, reforms. It is run by some sinister establishment.

They are like second-rate ballplayers who blame everything in sight-the manager, the umpire, their associates, the rules-for their embarrassing inability to hit more than .150. In sports, nobody is fooled by such fellows. Sour grapes, in ordinary life, are sour grapes, and a few need a degree in advanced horticulture to know them for what they are.

When, however, attacks upon the institution of Congress come from among presumably responsible members themselves, they stir the interest of the outside citizen and, finally, his support. Quite understandably, he cannot believe that men elected to Congress would demean it without cause. After all, this is no Friday night ball game and beer and hotdog romp.

NOT ALWAYS WRONG

has failed to answer these attacks from withNevertheless, Congress generally not only in.

Worse, too many Members who know better give shamefaced and crawling countenance to them, lest they be branded as not "modern" enough. To cite a notable example, Senator CLARK, of Pennsylvania, has made a positive career of denouncing the Senate in which he sits, and of complaining in private of the better committee assignments unaccountably given to others, without once being challenged on the center of his philosophy.

But when a good man of Congress like Senator DODD, of Connecticut, blows up in momentary frustration to criticize not Congress but simply some leader or leaders of it, the roof falls in upon him. What Congress needs is to pull up its socks and defend itself as part of the constitutional structure of this country. It is often wrong and it has all

the human shortcomings of a human assembly. But it is surely not always wrong. And in defending its constitutional independence it can never, never be wrong.

LASER RAY AS AN ANTIMISSILE DEVICE

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, the Sioux City, Iowa, Journal, on September 29 published an intriguing article on the potential of a fantastic experiment which it said could "easily tip the world balance of power." If this weapon, better known as the laser ray-light amplification by means of stimulated emission of radiation-could be developed as an antimissile device, it could well be a fruitful and giant step toward the peace all of us desire. But the question is: Will we or the Russians develop it first? It is a matter of major importance

to all of us.

I ask unanimous consent that the article, "United States Bets Billion on Laser Ray To Become Missile Killer Beam," may be printed in the RECORD.

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

UNITED STATES BETS BILLION ON LASER RAY TO BECOME MISSILE KILLER BEAM (By John Woodfield) BALTIMORE.-Somewhere in outer space, an intercontinental ballistic missile streaks for its target.

Suddenly, from a satellite orbiting the earth, a tiny beam no larger in diameter than a piece of thread, is trained on the ICBM. The missile shudders, jerks erratically, then plunges harmlessly into the ocean.

Although it sounds like something out of a comic strip, such a beam soon may become a reality. So much faith does the U.S. Government have in it, that $1 billion in contracts for its research and development already has been let.

CUT THROUGH DIAMONDS

Known as lasers (light amplification by means of simulated emission of radiation), laboratory models already have hinted at the tremendous source of untapped energy by cutting through diamonds and battleship steel in seconds.

Discovered less than 3 years ago, in 1960, lasers are coherent light beams-light beams all of one wave length. Because the beams are of the same wave length they do not dissipate as does incoherent light. Thus, laser beams are many times brighter and hotter than the center of the sun.

Scientists already have discovered many but the Government is most concerned at fields in which lasers can work effectively,

the moment with their use as antimissile weapons. Such a weapon could easily tip the world balance of power, and it is common knowledge that Russia is working along the same lines.

Because lasers, like other light rays, have

difficulty piercing fog, their use as a defense against missiles would have to be from satellites orbiting the earth. This would eliminate the problem of cloud reflection present in the earth's atmosphere.

SIMPLE DEVICE

The laser itself is a rather simple device. It consists of a core or rod around which is wrapped a spiral flash lamp similar to those used in taking pictures. As the lamp is flashed, the light excites the chromium atoms in the core, and they move farther away from their nuclei. As the atoms drop