long lasting economic improvement in these rural areas."

Starting this fall, 9 U.S. Soil Conservation Service specialists and 24 junior technicians furnished by the private international voluntary service agencies will live and work under contract on project sites. In addition, the United States will supply hand tools, some equipment and 42,000 tons of surplus food.

The annual cost to the United States, aside from the food, is estimated at slightly more than $1 million. Most of the money will be spent in the United States.

The overall direction is under a special Algerian central authority responsible to the Algerian Labor Ministry. The ministry will pay the workers' wages, except for the U.S. food.

The workers' cash wages have been the subject of United States-Algerian negotiations for more than 6 months, since Premier Ahmed Ben Bella agreed in principle to the U.S. plan.

Some Algerians wanted the United States to provide cash as well as food. On a 60cent daily wage basis, this would have meant a cash outlay of more than $6 million a year. The request was turned down in Washington.

OTHER FOOD AID CONTINUES

U.S. assistance in the form of surplus food continues to help feed about 2,500,000 needy Algerians, about a fourth the population. Last March the number reached 4 million.

An agreement is near on the continuation of such help to be handled by Care-Medico, Inc., a private agency, using U.S. Government wheat, vegetable oil and dried milk. A labor ministry census has reduced the number expected to be hard-core needy recipients by this fall to 1,300,000.

A third surplus food program on which an accord is near is a government-to-government arrangement under which the United States will provide wheat for the Algerian Labor Ministry to use for its own food-forwages program without U.S. technical assistance.

About 300,000 jobless Algerians are to be employed under this all-Algerian plan. The remaining 500,000 jobless Algerians are expected by labor ministry officials to be absorbed in a general economic recovery. Western observers regard this prediction as optimistic.

has authorized for sale. What would this deal mean to our wheat economy in particular and the U.S. economy in general?

Far, far more than most Americans realize, says Erwin E. Kelm, president of Cargill, Inc., says Erwin E. Kelm, president of Cargill, Inc., of Minneapolis, largest grain merchant in this country and the corporation which made the first sale of 100,000 tons of wheat to Hungary last Friday. In fact, some of the economic benefits which Mr. Kelm sees stemming directly from these sales well may startle eyen top experts on wheat and foreign trade. Specifically:

Benefit: While this one deal would increase our total wheat exports over 1962 by less than 28 percent, it would more than double our dollar sales of wheat compared with last year.

Explanation: In recent years 70 to 75 percent of all our wheat exports have been so-called giveaway sales. We have been selling wheat through normal commercial channels to foreign buyers, but permitting the countries to pay for their purchases in their own soft currencies.

Our Government has been accepting these soft currencies-of such underdeveloped countries as India, Pakistan, Indonesia-and then has been paying the U.S. exporters in dollars.

"The true value of the soft currencies our Government has accumulated from these concessional sales probably amounts to only 12 to 15 cents on the dollar," Mr. Kelm believes.

But the wheat being sold to Russia and the Soviet bloc is to be paid for in gold and hard cash. The sale of 4 million long tons would increase our dollar earnings from wheat by over $250 million more than 100 percent above 1962's earnings.

Benefit: This $250 million increase in our dollar earnings would slash the gap between what we earn abroad and what we spend abroad by at least 10 percent-thereby significantly reducing the dangerous deficit in our balance of payments.

Explanation: This deficit is now running at an annual rate of $2 billion, down from the near-catastrophic rate of earlier this year, but still large enough to pose a relentless threat to our dollar. The benefit of an increase in our dollar earnings of $250 million is obvious.

Benefit: This one sale would radically change our entire domestic wheat picturevirtually eliminate our wheat surplus and

As a company vitally involved in the Soviet transactions, Cargill properly refuses to comment on the wheat decision or its enormous political implications. But, says Mr. Kelm flatly, "the economics of the sales are sound"-and he's certainly documenting his view.

WHEAT TO RUSSIA

(Statement by Senator CARLSON, October 8, 1963)

Russia's purchase of 239 million bushels of wheat from Canada for $500 million, with a delivery date of next July 31, and her purchase of 582 million bushels of wheat from Australia, valued at $90 million is of concern to every U.S. wheatgrower from the standpoint of future export markets.

With this sale, Canada has sold practically her entire surplus from the 1963 crop. The temptation, of course, will be for the Canadians to increase their wheat production for future sales not only to Russia, but other countries that need wheat and this means further competition for us.

The last session of Congress spent months writing foreign trade legislation and I believe every realist must agree that despite its idealistic approach to world trade our experience-which is limited-must convince everyone that trade between nations must be realistic and practical. World trade is not only competitive, but it is a cold, calculated business operation.

Russia and Canada are our real competitors in the world trade of wheat. We have never sold wheat to Russia, as her wheat trade has always been on the export side of the market.

Selling wheat behind the Iron Curtain can be an American opportunity to improve our position in the cold war. It can also be an immediate financial gain, in view of our balance of payments.

Russia's original arrangement for payment to Canada for wheat purchased was based on a credit term of 18 months, the first 25 percent to be paid in gold. Now we are advised that Russia will pay the entire amount in gold immediately on delivery.

Our Nation lost $423 million worth of gold from January 1 to August 31, 1963. Our gold reserve has dropped from $24 billion in 1954 to $15.7 billion in 1963.

sale of wheat to Russia strengthens commuThere are some who will argue that the

nism, but the facts are that Russia is securing not only foodstuffs, but industrial prod

1963]

RUSSIA, ALGERIA SIGN TRADE PACT

LONDON, November 5.-Moscow radio today announced a major long-term trade agreement between the Soviet Union and Algeria, based on exchange of Soviet heavy equipment and arms for Algerian food.

The radio said that under the agreement signed in Algiers yesterday the Soviet Union will send Algeria ships, arms, trucks, farm machines, and other capital equipment, as well as timber, paper, oil products and chemicals.

Algeria will export to the Soviet Union citrus fruits, dates, wheat, olive oil, flour, wine, alcohol, fruit juices, hides and other traditional exports.

dent level.

Explanation: The Department of Agriculture just predicted that on next June 30, our wheat carryover will be no more than 725 million bushels, "a scant 125 million bushels over what the the Department considers a prudent reserve," says Mr. Kelm. The Cargill president believes President Kennedy's 4-million-ton ceiling on Russian sales "reflects a concern that our stocks might suddenly be reduced below the level of a safe reserve."

Benefit: The export of this wheat would allow a cut in our domestic budget spending of around $225 million this fiscal year and of another $30 million in the next fiscal year. Explanation: As the Government's wheat surplus disappears, the costs of storing the

EXHIBIT 1

BENEFITS CITED IN WHEAT SALE

(By Sylvia Porter)

Now that the ground rules finally have been set for sales and shipments of U.S. wheat to the Soviet bloc, let's assume the Kremlin follows through and buys the limit of 4 million long tons President Kennedy

Benefit: The elimination of the wheat surplus and the present high world prices for wheat will give us an extraordinary opportunity to work out a reasonable program to solve our chronic wheat problem.

Explanation: Not in years have we had so favorable a surplus-price background against which to agree on a transition program acceptable to all of us-wheat producers, consumers, taxpayers.

quantities. For instance, statistics for 1962 show that West Germany trade agreements with Russia alone totaled about $700 million. Germany is now the third largest industrial nation in the world. Italy has a 4-year trade agreement with the Soviets for $1.11 billion worth of goods. France has signed a 3-year trade pact with Russia for $100 million in trade. India has a 4-year trade pact with Russia which provides annual trade of $440 million. Japan has a 3-year trade pact with Russia that calls for $365 million. The United States and Russian trade last year was $16 million each way.

I am not advocating the sale of strategic materials to Russia, but I do urge that our Nation give every consideration to expanding our foreign trade with Russia and her satellites in nonstrategic items. We are now selling wheat to Germany, France, and other European countries. Much of this wheat is processed into flour and foodstuffs by these countries and then sold to Russia, therefore, Russia gets our wheat whether we sell it to them or not.

Some are of the opinion that we should not sell wheat to Russia at a subsidized price. The facts are we do not export any wheat in the world market through dollar sales

or Public Law 480 that does not carry a subsidy. This is true whether we sell to such Communist countries as Poland, Yugoslavia, or our allies. The present subsidy is about 55 cents per bushel.

The subsidy does not go to the exporter or to the country that buys the wheat. It goes to the American wheat farmer in order to maintain domestic prices above the world

market.

At the present time Russia and her satellites, such as Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Rumania, and Bulgaria are in the market for wheat. In my opinion, it is in our Nation's interests, from both a financial and a humanitarian standpoint, to sell this grain. Increased exports of wheat from the United States at the present time would not only aid in reducing our surplus, but would also improve our balance of payments, strengthen domestic wheat prices, reduce the taxpayer's carrying cost of our present surplus, and be the humanitarian thing to do, as well as have an important bearing on our foreign policy.

Mr. DIRKSEN obtained the floor. Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT].

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, we have been in conference part of the morning and a good bit of the noon hour, in connection with the amendment before the Senate, which was debated last night.

I believe that through the processes of conciliation, compromise, and consultation, we have arrived at a program of procedure which will be satisfactory to Members on both sides of this issue, and will permit the Senate to continue with consideration of the foreign aid bill, without further debate on this point.

As the first step in this connection, I introduce and send to the desk a bill, and request that it be read, for the information of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill The bill will be received and appropriately referred, and will be read.

The bill (S. 2310) to prohibit any guarantee by the Export-Import Bank or any other agency of the Government of payment of obligations of Communist countries, was read the first time by its title, and the second time at length, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, 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 any product by such country, agency, or national.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, if we can have the cooperation of Senators, I propose to work out an agreement and a legislative program whereby this bill will be referred to the Banking and Currency Committee, with instructions from the Senate to report the bill to the Senate on November 25, and with assurance from the majority leader and the minority leader that it will then be called up on the following Monday.

Mr. MANSFIELD. No, Mr. President, either that day or the next day-that Monday, the 25th, or Tuesday, the 26th. Mr. MUNDT. I stand correctedeither the 25th or the 26th.

In conjunction with this understanding, an agreement has been developed with the Export-Import Bank that it will not make any new credits available to Communist countries in connection with trade in grain or any other product until such time as the Senate has completed its action on whatever recommendations come to it from the Banking and Currency Committee.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield?

Mr. MUNDT. I yield.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Does this include all industrial products? Mr. MUNDT. My bill includes all My bill includes all products.

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

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, a meeting was held in my office, which was attended by 12 or 14 Senators of both parties, this morning and into this afternoon. There were present representatives of the Export-Import Bank and the Treasury Department, at our request; and we tried to reach, through a process of accommodation, a reasonable solution of the pending proposal. I was not in favor of it, and I am not in favor of it, because it creates a situation which could be used to undermine the pinnings of the Executive. But I will go along with it, and I will support it, and I will do the best I can along the lines unanimously arrived at, by the Senators of both parties who were present this morning and this afternoon at the conference.

I have talked with the chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee, to which I assume this legislative proposal will be referred. He has assured me that he will strictly adhere to the wishes of the Senate. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] is a man of his word, regardless of his personal feelings about any piece of proposed legislation.

Of course, it is anticipated-and I hope it will be made the will of the Senate that the bill will be reported to the Senate by a week from Monday, November 25; and both the majority leader and the minority leader give the Senate their assurance that it will be brought up either that day or the next day, for immediate consideration.

In brief, I believe that covers the results of our participation in the meeting this morning.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, there was a meeting early this morning, and at that meeting I suggested that since there had been no hearings on the proposal offered by the distinguished Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT], I, for one, hoped that perhaps we could learn a little more about the mechanics of the operations of the Export-Import Bank in processing foreign applications of this kind, and exactly how it works when it

operates in handling such applications as commercial transactions on a guaranteed basis. At that meeting it was suggested that perhaps the Chairman of the Export-Import Bank might confer with us. Pursuant to that, I had a session with the majority leader; and a dozen Senators met in his office. The ExportImport Bank and the Treasury had representatives present. We had an opportunity to canvass the authority and the capacity of the Export-Import Bank in this field. More than that, we had an opportunity to explore its operations, its losses, its gains, and exactly how it would process applications of this kind.

After a thoroughgoing discussion, we thought perhaps we should satisfy the legislative process by having at least a few hearings on this proposal-consonant, of course, with the desires of the distinguished Senator from South Da

kota.

That was arranged; and now he proposes to offer his amended amendmentwhich includes not only grain, but also all commodities

Mr. MUNDT. And that is the form in which the bill has now been referred to the committee.

Mr. DIRKSEN. That is correct-and with instruction that it report at the earliest possible date, and, hopefully, not later than November 25. If that can take place, the order for the yeas and nays can be rescinded, the amendment can be withdrawn, we can obtain some testimony from sources both in the Government and out of the Government, and then we can have the subject matter before us; and, as a result, I think we shall be better equipped to deal with it.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Has the bill been introduced?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill has been introduced.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Has it been referred?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. Mr. MANSFIELD. To what committee will the bill be referred?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the present moment it would appear that the bill will be referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the bill be referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair rules that it will be unless some question is raised on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, since the procedure has gone that far, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking and Currency be directed to report back to the Senate with its finding on the bill not later than a week from Monday, November 25.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object—and I shall not object

Mr. MANSFIELD. Let us get the agreement to the request.

Mr. JAVITS. May I ask a question before the agreement is made? The Senator has asked for unanimous consent. I am a member of the Committee on Banking and Currency. I believe I am entitled to have a question answered.

Mr. MANSFIELD. There is no question about that. The Senator said that he would not object, and I merely suggested that the agreement be entered and then the Senator from New York might ask any question he wishes.

Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator allow me to ask one question?

Mr. JAVITS. Is there anything in the agreement that would bind the Committee on Banking and Currency, not as to the time at which it would report, but as to what it would report?

Mr. MANSFIELD. No.
Mr. JAVITS. That is all.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the ranking Republican member of the Subcommittee on International Finance of the Banking and Currency Committee, I should like to ask one question, at least, about the proposed timing. Some of us may be tied up on the 25th or 26th of November on other subjects. Is it imperative that the discussion of the bill be brought out on the floor on those days?

Mr. MANSFIELD. In the opinion of the leadership it is. The Senator will have to take our word for it. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I first yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I believe that we ought to clarify a couple of questions of procedure. I am the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Finance of the Committee on Banking and Currency. That subcommittee ordinarily has jurisdiction over questions affecting the Export-Import Bank. I do not know, because I do not see the chairman of the full committee present in the Chamber, whether it will be his intention or whether it is the intention of the leadership to bypass the normal reference to a subcommittee in order that the full committee, because of the time factor, should consider the Mundt amendment. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me to interrupt?

Mr. CLARK. Surely.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I am sure the Senator did not mean, and would wish to withdraw, the implication in his statement as to what the intent of the leadership was or is, because we have no intent. We do not interfere with committees. Committees are independent in their own right. They make their own decisions, and, under no circumstances, has the leadership ever attempted or will it ever attempt to lay down a rule, a law, or a dictum to any committee in this body.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.

Mr. CLARK. I certainly withdraw the imputation. I make only the comment that in my opinion it might be wiser if the leadership would interfere a little more than it does. This must be a question of judgment for the leadership. The Senator from Montana and I do not have the same views on that question.

Mr. MANSFIELD. No, but we have committees.

Mr. MANSFIELD. No, no; I refer to what the outcome of a vote would be. I believe there is a question of grave doubt there. As far as the subject of witnesses is concerned, it is anticipated that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the officers of the Export-Import Bank, and others would be called before the committee.

I intended to refer to another portion

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.

Mr. DIRKSEN. The leadership has no authority over subcommittees. That is an intracommittee question that must be resolved within the committee.

Mr. CLARK. It is a question of the function of the leadership. I happen to disagree with the Senator from Illinois on the question of the function of leadership.

Mr. MANSFIELD. If the Senator from Pennsylvania desires the leadership to function in the manner in which he proposes, he had better give the leadership some authority, because we do not have that authority now-98 Senators in this body have more authority tors in this body have more authority in their own hands than the 2 so-called leaders have. I think the Senator from Pennsylvania knows that.

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

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.

Mr. CLARK. As the Senator from Montana well knows, I have been trying to get the leadership more authority during the 7 years I have been serving in the Senate. Since the year 1961 I have been conspicuously unsuccessful. Mr. Leader-this is all in good funMr. DIRKSEN. I am glad the Senator

is not angry.

Mr. MANSFIELD. But truthful.

Mr. CLARK. I should like to ask the leadership the following question. I wish the Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] were present in the Chamber. Perhaps the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN], who is the ranking Democratic member of that committee, will be able to answer the question. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Finance, I am of the view that it does not make too much difference whether the matter is considered in a subcommittee or by the full committee.

Before the bill is reported to the Senate, we should have a hearing. We ought to call the Chairman of the Export-Import Bank, and perhaps we ought to call as a witness the Secretary of State.

forgotten what it was.

Mr. CLARK. I have practically forgotten what I was going to say, too. All I can say to the majority leader is that, so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to cooperate wholeheartedly.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I recall what I intended to say. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania to take my word as to why there is a reason for the bill to be considered and reported not later than the 25th of this month.

Mr. CLARK. I shall take the word of my friend the Senator from Montana. So far as I am concerned, the committee procedure can be any way the chairman and the ranking Democratic and Republican members of the committee wish it to be. I shall reserve my right as chairman of the subcommittee to have a good deal to say about the bill.

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

Mr. MANSFIELD. I promised first to yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. TOWER. My question was covered by the colloquy between the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, the from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON], is not in chairman of our committee, the Senator the Chamber at the present time. However, the Senator from Pennsylvania may not know that the majority leader has talked with the Senator from Virginia. I assume that they discussed the proposed time limitation.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Only the time limitation.

Mr. SPARKMAN. In the discussion this morning at which the question was worked up, I believe everyone present understood that we would have the officials of the Export-Import Bank, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of State appear as witnesses.

I believe the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] was suggested.

Mr. CLARK. I am not at all sure that the limitation of time which has been suggested would be altogether wise in view of the fact that the Mundt amendment will not be part of the foreign aid bill anyway, and what is all the hurry? bill anyway, and what is all the hurry?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, there is an element of doubt in the latter assertion made by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CLARK. As there is, indeed, with respect to most of my assertions.

I believe it is rather urgent that we do so. I do not know what the intention of the chairman of the committee might be. I take it that the chairman has the discretion of referring a bill to a subcommittee or not referring it. In this case I should think that, by reason of the limitation of time, the hearings would be held by the full committee.

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

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. It occurs to me that perhaps one of the most salient points in the whole situation has been overlooked in the colloquy. Is it not correct that the Export-Import Bank has agreed to hold up any further commitments until after the proposed new bill is disposed of, provided it is disposed of in a short period of time?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Within the time limitation-and "a short period" is an accurate statement. It will be a short period of time, because we have no right to hold up anything indefinitely. As I said before, I have very grave doubts about the procedure we are following, because I think we are undermining the foundations of the executive branch of the Government in taking unto ourselves responsibilities which are not ours under the Constitution.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, is the agreement on the part of the ExportImport Bank to hold up further commitments provided speedy disposition is made of the bill a part of the whole package? Am I correct or not?

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator is correct.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Montana?

The bill (S. 2310) was referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, what is the status of the proposed agreement? Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, a Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. COTTON. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I recall the allusion to which the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire refers. I point out from New Hampshire refers. I point out that we are all mortal, that we all have our faults. Most of us are becoming a little edgy at this time of the year, I would hope most sincerely that Senators would unanimously see to it that the word given by the two leaders would be honored and that the debate would not honored and that the debate would not be dilatory or drawn out. I am sure it would not be. We should be supported in our hope and expectation that once this measure is reported back to the Senate by the Banking and Currency Committee, we would be able to dispose of it in 1 or 2 days.

So far as the author of the amendment and the proposal is concerned, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT] has indicated that he will make every effort to do so. All we have in this body is our word, and it is either

worth something or it is worth nothing. If Senators want leaders, they must have a little confidence in them and help them along.

Mr. COTTON. I was not suggesting

has been referred.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The time certain limitation has not yet been agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous-consent request of the Senator from Montana has not yet been agreed to.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-apparently the bill will be reported on the 25th or the 26th

Mr. MANSFIELD. The 25th.

Mr. COTTON. On the 25th. Obviously no provision has been made as to how long the Senate will consider it. No provision can be made?

Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct. Mr. COTTON. Last night, I recall, one Senator-one of the distinguished leaders-felt so strongly about this matter that he indicated if it were to be passed he would discuss it at great length. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Hampshire yield? Mr. COTTON. Please allow me to finish the question I wish to ask. Now, while the foreign aid bill is pending, it is unlikely that we would have a long drawn out discussion-I do not use the word "filibuster" that would preclude its passage; but if it is brought in all alone, particularly when there are other measures before the Senate that certain Senators do not wish to expedite, there is nothing in the whole wide world to prevent the Senate from discussing it for

Mr. MANSFIELD. I understand. Mr. COTTON. I am suggesting what the distinguished majority leader himself said a moment ago, that there is not a leader-majority or minority-or anyone else who can give his word about what other Senators will do.

Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct. Mr. COTTON. I believe we should be aware of the fact that, while we may have an agreement, when the bill reaches the Senate no one knows how long it will take to get affirmative action. I should like to object. I am not going to do so, but I regret that we are not going to dispose of this critical question while we are dealing with the foreign aid bill, so that it could be disposed of in a reasonable time.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I appreciate the remarks just made by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. CorTON], but strangely enough, I still have faith in the membership of this body, on both sides of the aisle. I can be disappointed, and I have been disappointed, but I expect the membership, both Democratic and Republican, to uphold our hands when the time comes, regardless of how they may feel personally.

If any

Mr. COTTON. I share the faith of the distinguished majority leader. thing could restore my faith in expeditious work by the Senate, it is the fact that we have accomplished so much in such a short time this session.

the distinguished leader can tell us whether this program has been coordinated in any way with the House? Mr. MANSFIELD. No.

Mr. DOMINICK. It occurs to me that if the bill comes back and is passed by the Senate and then sent to the House, and the House sat on it for the rest of the session, we would get nowhere.

Mr. MANSFIELD. No. This program has not been discussed with the House. It is not intended to be discussed with the House. This is looked upon purely as a Senate responsibility. I am quite sure the minority leader and the distinguished Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT], as well as the Senator from Georgia and other Senators, will support the statement I have just made. What the House does is its own business. What we do in this instance is ours. That was made very plain in the meeting this morning.

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

Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.

Mr. GORE. Because of my attendance in committee I have not heard all

that has transpired in the Chamber, but Senate aids have briefed me on the subject.

I was one of a bipartisan group of Senators to whom the question of the sale of wheat to Russia was put. I gave my reaction and approval of the sale of wheat on the basis of cash on the barrelhead-gold preferably, no credits, and no soft currency.

Now that the possibility of a much wider trade has come into question, I wish to reexamine the whole question before reaching a decision. I believe that the wise course to follow is committee hearings and consideration.

I congratulate the majority leader and the minority leader upon reaching this agreement, to which I subscribe.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I am grateful to the Senator from Tennessee.

(Mr.

The PRESIDING OFFICER BAYH in the chair). Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD]? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, in view of this agreement, I am willing to offer some unanimous-consent requests which will clear the decks so that we may proceed.

First of all, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the yeas and nays ordered on my amendment and on the modifying amendment may be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to withdraw the two amendments, because I have introduced a bill covering the subject.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota now has that right. It is so ordered.

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

Mr. MUNDT. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. To set the record straight, a bill has been introduced and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency. By direction of the Senate, it will be reported no later than a week from Monday, November 25, and on the basis of the pledge of the leaders, it will be brought up for consideration that day, or the next day.

Again, may I express the hope that the debate will be assiduous and energetic but not dilatory or delaying.

Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I should like to add to the general understanding, so that all Senators may know, that the directors of the Export-Import Bank have agreed not to extend any further credits to Communist countries until the Senate has expressed its voice on the matter.

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

Mr. MUNDT. I yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I should like to reply to the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON], since I gather that his remarks, directed to the majority leader, had some indirect reference to my comments last evening. I was looking through the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. It was a rather tense moment on the floor-most of it due to fatigue. I said the following:

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.

Earlier, I said:

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 ExportImport 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 give my assurance to the Senator from New Hampshire and to the majority leader that there is no intention on my part to do anything but make a constructive contribution to the debate, and with no delays.

Mr. MANSFIELD. If only the rest of the Senate would follow the example of the Senator from Minnesota-this year. Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. HUMPHREY. Iyield. Mr. DIRKSEN. The Senate knows and we know-with a sense of affectionthat the "immediates" of the Senator from Minnesota are sometimes longer and sometimes shorter.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I want to reserve the degree of flexibility along the lines the minority leader has suggested.

esteem, that I did not mention his name. I was not impugning his motives, I was not criticizing him; I merely used that as an example. I said if one Senator felt so strongly on this question that he would talk at length, if that was true of the Senator from Minnesota last night, it may be true of several Senators on November 25.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I fully understood the Senator's remarks. I wanted the RECORD clear that I felt last evening that we were proceeding too rapidly on a vital question. I am pleased with the resolution of this vital matter. As I felt last night, I feel even the text of the resolution goes far beyond what is wise policy. I shall await the report of the Banking and Currency Committee. I hope the report will be negative. I intend to vote as I expected to vote last evening.

Now I wish to ask the Senator from South Dakota a question. The understanding is clear as to the Export-Import Bank and its recess, so to speak, as to any commitments relating to transactions that require Export-Import Bank guarantees for the future. Is that correct?

Mr. MUNDT. Yes; and it holds until such time as the Senate may conclude its action.

Mr. HUMPHREY. No matter how the Senate may conclude its action. Is that correct?

volves credit for any other export sales than than grain. Has the Export-Import Bank been extending credit for other sales?

Mr. HUMPHREY. It applies to all products.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota Has the bank been extending this kind of insurance to them?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Only to Yugoslavia.

I yield to the Senator from Vermont. Mr. AIKEN. Any conditions that are applicable will, according to the understanding, be applicable to all exports. It is not contemplated that the ExportImport Bank will make loans. The Export-Import Bank insures loans made by the commercial banks to provide exporters loans for the purpose of financing exports to foreign countries. It is an insurance business, and not a loan business, and the two transactions that have taken place have been insurance issued by the Export-Import Bank to banks that have financed Cargill and one other company.

Mr. MANSFIELD. It is a moneymaking proposition.

Mr. AIKEN. That is correct. The Export-Import Bank, since its inception in 1925, has made profits in the neighborhood of $2 billion. Losses have been minimal. There were some losses when Castro confiscated powerlines and a telephone company in Cuba, but the losses have been negligible.

Mr. YOUNG of Ohio and Mr. JAVITS

Mr. MANSFIELD. But with the assurance that it will not be delayed. Mr. HUMPHREY. And that it is not addressed the Chair. retroactive.

Mr. MUNDT. My amendment is not retroactive. retroactive. Congress cannot pass retroactive legislation.

To make it perfectly clear, so that there will be no question, the ExportImport Bank has already underwritten credits to Hungary for $4.5 million, under terms of that sale. Neither my amendment nor the gentlemen's agreement we have entered into can move backward. I have no such intention.

Mr. HUMPHREY. If business trans

actions are entered into which do not require guarantees by the Export-Import Bank, but are privately financed, or are made with a private bank, the understanding we have does not prevail?

Mr. MUNDT. The understanding would not affect the sale of the grain as we anticipated it that is, sale of the grain for gold or cash. My amendment covers only the implications covered by my amendment, and those only.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Or where a private bank with Government help takes on the guarantee responsibility.

Mr. MUNDT. That is correct, but it is my opinion that the Johnson Act would preclude the right of such private banks to extend credit to a Communist country in default.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. COTTON. I assure the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, who knows I hold him in the very highest CIX- -1382

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. YOUNG] Sought recognition. I would not want to preempt his right to the floor. I have a question which may result in an amendment. Has the Senator from Ohio an amendment?

Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I wish to lay before the Senate an amendment on which I have already spoken.

from Ohio. Mr. JAVITS. I yield to the Senator

The

Senator from Ohio.
PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, I offer my amendment No. 293, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, will be stated.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. It is proposed, on page 41, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

(d) Add the following new section:

"SEC. 512. PROHIBITION AGAINST MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO SPAIN.-No military assistance shall be furnished under this Act to the Government of Spain. No other provision of this Act shall be construed to authorize the President to waive the provisions of this section. The provisions of this sec

I yield now to the Senator from North tion shall not be construed to prohibit sales Dakota [Mr. YOUNG].

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, I was not at the meeting this morning, so I wonder if this matter in

to the Government of Spain of defense articles or services under section 507."

Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, having already spoken out regarding this