« ПретходнаНастави »
amendment, I shall take less than 1 min Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, reserving Mr. HUMPHREY. If it is in the naute. It may be that the distinguished the right to object, I heard the phrase tional interest or in the common dechairman of the Foreign Relations Com- “that the President would be empowered fense. mittee [Mr. FULBRIGHT] will not object to carry out the provisions of this act Mr. JAVITS. That is what we argued to the insertion of this amendment in without regard to the provisions of any against. Nearly everything Nasser is the bill. On the other hand, it can be other act.” That is pretty broad lan- getting he is getting under Public Law truthfully stated that the pending bill guage. Unless it is explained by some 480. does not provide military assistance for legislative history, I shall be constrained
Mr. HUMPHREY. This does not reGeneralissimo Franco's Spain. This to object to it.
late alone to Nasser. It makes sure amendment pins that prohibition down Mr. HUMPHREY. I am about to ex that if food supplies are needed in the definitely and simply provides that plain it.
southern command of NATO, or food No military assistance shall be furnished The purpose is to make crystal clear supplies are needed anywhere else, the under this Act to the Government of Spain. that the section of Public Law 480 deal- provision of Public Law 480 will be apNo other provision of this Act shall be con- ing with the trade expansion features of plicable, and not limited by anything strued to anthorize the President to waive
the bill, as well as the utilization of food, we have done in this act or any other the provisions of this section. The provi
as necessary, for the common defense, is act. sions of this section shall not be construed
Mr. JAVITS. By legislating with a to prohibit sales to the Government of Spain not restricted. The amendment contains of defense articles or services under section language that will make crystal clear that broadsword we take in everything. It 507.
the restrictions that we have written into will take in Mr. Nasser, as well as the I hope the chairman will agree to ac
it with respect to Public Law 480, section southern defense command to which the
2, referring to general policy dealing with Senator refers. Therefore, Mr. Presicept the amendment, and that the amendment will be adopted.
trade expansion, for example, and to al dent, I oppose the amendment. It will Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I leviate famine in the world, are not to be vitiate what the Senate did in the Gruen
ing-Javits amendment. I ask for the regret that I cannot accept the amend- excluded; secondly, that in the common
yeas and nays. ment. Everyone knows that we have defense, when food is needed for na
The yeas and nays were ordered. had an agreement with Spain regarding tional interests, it is not to be excluded.
Mr. SCOTT. There are restrictions Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the very important base arrangements. Military assistance has been given to Spain already in existence pertaining to ship- Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield. primarily for that purpose in recent ments of goods and materials to Communist countries.
Mr. MORSE. I came into the Chamyears. That was the only reason why we concluded an agreement dealing with
Mr. HUMPHREY. This relates only ber rather late. I wish to ask the Sento Public Law 480.
ator to explain the purpose of his amendthe bases. I could not possibly accept the amend
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, may we ment. From what I have heard, I am ment, much to my regret. I wish I could have order?
sure it calls for a major debate in the accept it, but I oppose the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate. If what I have heard is true, I
completely agree with the Senator from If we singled out Spain for this kind of Senate will be in order. treatment, it would be regarded as an
Mr. SCOTT. I should like to have New York, that it seeks to vitiate much unfriendly act, directly contrary to the some order in the Senate so that I may
of what we have done during the course
of the debate. I do not propose to have reason for the action of our Government complete my sentence, at least, for the in that regard. sheer pleasure of making a complete sen
I hope the Senator will explain his Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I would like to tence of what I was about to say. There also single out Duvalier's Haiti. I would are other restrictions already in existence amendment. like to include it in my amendment. pertaining to shipments of goods and
Mr. HUMPHREY. I have explained it. The PRESIDING
Mr. MORSE. I did not hear the SenaOFFICER The materials, that is, limitations on ship
tor's explanation. question is on agreeing to the amend- ments and other dealings, with Commument of the Senator from Ohio, on page nist and Communist-dominated coun
Mr. HUMPHREY. The amendment is 41, between lines 8 and 9, to the com
tries. I understand from what the Sena- designed to do two things; first, to make tor has said that the proposed restriction
it crystal clear that the reservations that mittee amendment, in the nature of a substitute, as amended. is limited to Public Law 480.
have been placed in the bill, namely, the The amendment to the amendment
Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is pending foreign aid bill, insofar as those
reservations are concerned with respect correct. was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Mr. SCOTT. Therefore there is no in
to Public Law 480, shall not be applicable committee amendment is open to fur- tention that the executive department to what we call the common defense or ther amendment. shall be able to avoid any other situation to the national interests of the Nation,
when the President in his judgment deMr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I whatever. send an amendment to the desk. I have
Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is
termines that the national interest is at
stake. discussed it with the chairman of the absolutely correct; so that there will be
Mr. MORSE. I will speak in my own committee. no doubt at all as to what that section in
right later. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Public Law 480 means. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Mr. LAUSCHE. amendment offered by the Senator from
Mr. President, will
the Senator yield ? Minnesota to the commitee amendment, Senator yield? in the nature of a substitute, as amend
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I ed, will be stated.
Mr. JAVITS. The Senate adopted an
wish to confer with the Senator from The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. It is proposed, amendment, proposed by the Senator Oregon and the Senator from Ohio on
the amendment. I wish to withdraw the on page 54, after line 4, to insert the from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING] and myfollowing:
self, which was expressly designed to amendment. (c) Redesignate present section 109 to be deal with Public Law 480, because it is
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas 110 and insert the following new section 109:
under Public Law 480 that Nasser is and nays have been ordered. "SEC. 109. The President may, subject to getting anything preponderantly. Is it Mr. HUMPHREY. I ask unanimous the restrictions contained in this Act, carry not a fact that this proposal would can consent that I may withdraw the amendout transactions authorized by this Act cel out the very purpose of that amend ment. without regard to the provisions of any other ment, because it leaves the discretion to The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there Act whenever he determines that such transthe President?
objection? The Chair hears none, and actions are important to (1) the national
Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator is cor the Senator withdraws his amendment. interest of the United States, and (2) the
rect. ability of the United States to carry out ef
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, in the fectively the policies and purposes of section
Mr. JAVITS. He can suspend it if he first place I say to the Senator from 2 of this Act
or to meet the requirements wishes to do so in the national interest. Minnesota that I am very much pleased of the common defense. Is that correct?
that he did what he did. It would have
caused unquestioned confusion in respect I lay the question directly before the Mr. LAUSCHE. It is my understandto the pending bill if his amendment had Senate. They say that if we add the de ing of the general law, stated many been adopted. It would ride across fense of negligence, they are concerned times in the jurisprudence of evidence, everything we have fought and bled for, that they will not be able to be respon- that the burden of establishing negliand some of us almost died for, on the sible for such loose standards as to third gence, fraud, or misconduct would be floor.
parties; namely, the housing authorities upon the guarantor—the U.S. GovernI should like to have the attention of or building and loan and other orga ment. That is the understanding and the chairman of the committee, the nizations with which they might be deal- intention of the committee. Senator in charge of the bill, and the ing in Latin America.
Mr. JAVITS. That is exactly correct. Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE], in
As everyone knows, negligence relates That is the important point. I may say order to see if we can do something to to the standard of care of a reasonable to the Senator—and I shall ask him no help with a very trying section of the
man. Numerous juries are required to further questions—that what he has last bill, and perhaps avoid the need for determine that question in the United said is so important, because most of amending it.
States. Hence, the feeling is that if we those things we would hope that, like a I call attention to page 34, lines 16 to add to the other definitions; namely, good insurer, the Government would pay 18, which read:
fraud or misconduct, where there has honorable and legitimate claims. (3) In paragraph (2) strike out “fraud or been something willful, something overt, Therefore, what the Senator has said is, misconduct” in the second proviso and sub- the standard of negligence, we will create in my view, far more important to govstitute "fraud, misconduct, or negligence".
a situation in which the terms will be- ernment administration than to the It will be noted that it is proposed in come so ambiguous that businessmen will courts. We cannot control the courts, the bill to establish additional bases for neither invest nor underwrite. Also, but we certainly can have rulings on the enabling the United States to defend there is grave doubt that the paper which way in which a provision like this shall against claims under the all-risk guar- they hold as notes or mortgages will be be administered. I am grateful to the antees which are provided for by the negotiable on the same ground as to Senator from Ohio for saying what he
said. act. The all-risk guarantees could now be a defense against the holder. be vitiated if the person having the ben I have discussed this question with the
Mr. President, may we have from the efit of the guarantee were guilty of fraud drafter of the amendment, the Senator chairman of the committee some confiror misconduct for which that person or from Ohio (Mr. LAUSCHE]. I gather that mation of the statements by the Senator corporation was responsible.
he is willing to make certain definitions from Ohio? The words of the statute are clear. with regard to this subject. I shall ask Mr. FULBRIGHT. The understandThey state:
him two questions which we have agreed ing of the Senator from Ohio is also my Provided, further
upon, so that the Senate may be fully understanding. The negligence referred
advised. Naturally, I am interested in to is negligence of some person who is This is section 221(b) (2) of the For- saving the amendment of any of our in no way under the control of the boreign Aid Act
colleagues who feel in deep good faith rower, as described by the Senator from Provided, further, That no payment may that what they propose is desirable. If New York.
New York. He is not an employee or be made under this paragraph 2 for any loss the committee has adopted the amend- agent or third person, over whom the arising out of fraud or misconduct for which ment, and if it is possible to save it, I borrower would not exercise control, or the investor is responsible.
am happy to try to do so. Naturally, for whom he is not responsible. It seems The part of the bill to which I refer it is not at all certain that the Senate
to me that that would be unfair and, in proposes to include negligence, so that would not take a different position upon my opinion, was not the intention of the the new bases of defense would be fraud, argument, debate, and amendment committee. misconduct, or negligence. The questions which I shall ask the
Mr. JAVITS. As to the latter ques
tion, does the chairman agree as to the I am advised—and this is borne out Senator from Ohio to answer will be by communications to the committee helpful, I feel, but I cannot assume that question of burden of proof throughout,
as to the administration of this question and to me that the purpose of the all- they will be conclusive either upon me
and its effect on the question of judicial risk guarantee is likely to be vitiated, or upon the underwriters. The commit
interpretation? because the investors who have been in- tee of conference will then have to decide
as a practical question what it wants to vesting will not invest if negligence be
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That
is my do.
opinion. comes a defense. I will give the reasons for that. The all-risk guarantee which
If the Senator from Ohio is willing to
Mr. LAUSCHE. It is not my intention, is covered by the law provides for $180 answer the questions, I think his re
as the proponent of the amendment, or
of the committee, to require the agmillion in guarantees, with certain limi- sponses will be helpful and may prove to tations on the individual.
dispel the difficulties. I think it is grieved party to prove that he was not The all-risk guarantee has mainly worth trying. I do not wish to question guilty of fraud, not guilty of misconduct,
and not guilty of negligence. The agbeen used for housing projects in Latin the Senator under false pretenses. America, certainly a most important and
The first question is: Is it a fact, as a
grieved party would have made his case constructive aspect of the act. matter of legislative history, that the
by showing loss, and the burden of proof
would then fall upon the U.S. GovernA good deal of this investment has fraud, misconduct, and negligence which been in housing projects in South Amerare here referred to, in order to be a
ment to show that the loss occurred ica.
through the misconduct, fraud, or negliIt is somewhat analogous to our defense to an all-risk guarantee must be
gence of the agent, official, or servant of housing agencies or housing authorities. fraud, misconduct, or negligence of the
the aggrieved person. The underwriters of these security is- employees, officers, or duly constituted
Mr. JAVITS. I should like to ask the sues, the makers of these investments, agents of the investor?
Senator from Ohio one further question, are mainly banking firms in this coun
Mr. LAUSCHE. That is the under
which he may or may not answer, as try, which have communicated with me standing I had in submitting the amend
he chooses. May we have some idea as as well as the committee. I will tell ment. That is my conviction, and that
to why the Senator felt that the amendthe whole story to the Senate. If these is the understanding under which the
ment as to negligence was important? downtown Wall Street banking firms do amendment was approved in committee.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Under the present not invest, that business will not be done
Mr. JAVITS. Second, in the admin- law, the U.S. Government, in guaranteeunless the United States puts up its own istration of this section—and we would ing the loss incurred in a housing project money. hope that the courts, too, would be
or a business, was relieved of responWe must understand that we are deal- guided by this standard—is it the legis- sibility if and when it was able to show ing with the business equation, with lative intent of the amendment that the that the loss resulted from fraud or misbusinessmen who can invest or not in- burden of proof shall be upon the Gov
burden of proof shall be upon the Gov- conduct on the part of the agents, offvest, as they choose, and there is nothing ernment to assert its defense against an cials, or servants of the borrowing we can do to compel them. That is why all-risk guarantee?
I added the word "negligence" because rule in regard to negligence in connec ble the next time this subject comes beI did not believe that the Government tion with torts will not be inhibited at all
tion with torts will not be inhibited at all fore us. In short, many U.S. citizens of should be responsible, when it could from going into these risk guarantees? Yugoslav ancestry have claims against prove that the loss resulted from the Mr. LAUSCHE. The term “negligence" the Yugoslav Government, but the Yugonegligence of the borrower. Unless we is applicable to business operations just slav Government has disregarded them include the word "negligence," there is as it is to tort actions. The director of or has paid no attention to them. My practically ironclad responsibility de a corporation can become liable on two amendment contemplates requiring a volving upon the U.S. Government. I bases: one, because of violation of a showing by the Yugoslav Government in did not think that should be.
trust obligation; the other, because of the future, if it wishes to receive our help, Mr. JAVITS. One other question, if the perpetration of negligence.
that it has made a legitimate effort to the Senator from Ohio will bear with Mr. JAVITS. He can because of gross settle these claims. At this time I shall me, because it should prove to be helpful. negligence. A corporate officer or direc
negligence. A corporate officer or direc- not call up my amendment; but I shall What the underwriters and investors are tor cannot be held for other than gross call it up next year or the following year, deeply concerned about is, Where is the negligence.
if some favorable action is not taken by line drawn between negligence and bad Mr. LAUSCHE. That may be the law the Yugoslav Government on these judgment in a particular matter? Per of New York, but it is not the law of claims. haps A might claim inadequate admin Ohio. There is a Federal law on the The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there istration of a particular department, be subject.
be no further amendment to be proposed cause of the fact that particular people However, from the standpoint of trials to the committee amendment, as who are put on the job were not so bright or practicality, what difference is there amended, the question is on agreeing to as they should be, although they acted between proving fraud or misconduct or the committee amendment, as amended, in complete good faith and were per- negligence? In any case it becomes an in the nature of a substitute. fectly legitimate employees of substance issue, and must be proved.
The amendment, as amended, was and capacity. In other words, who is to Mr. JAVITS. I think fraud is dis- agreed to. determine the line between negligence honesty. Misconduct is generally con The PRESIDING OFFICER. The and bad business judgment or bad dis sidered a violation of some ethical or question now is on the engrossment of cretion, used in making a certain deci- legal obligation. The word "misconduct"
legal obligation. The word “misconduct” the amendment and the third reading sion? That, I think, is what is worrying is rather loosely construed, but appar of the bill. those people. If we could spell out some ently the underwriting community has The amendment was ordered to be enstandard, it would be helpful.
accepted this definition. But negli- grossed and the bill to be read a third Mr. LAUSCHE. The word "miscon gence—as we learn from the decisions of time. duct” is a word of art. “Fraud" has a juries every day-can be interpreted in The bill was read the third time. distinct definition. The definition of one way or the other; and after the jury The PRESIDING OFFICER. The “negligence" is known by every lawyer. has decided, no one can argue about it. question now is, Shall the bill pass? If we can logically and understandably Let me ask this question of the Senator Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, on this include the words "fraud" and "miscon from Ohio: Should it develop, as a prac- question, I ask for the yeas and nays. duct," it follows as a matter of logic that tical matter, that the concept the Sena
The yeas and nays were ordered. no impediment arises when we include tor from Ohio has of the law on this
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I shall the word "negligence.” If a trial were question is not quite in accord with the
vote for this foreign aid bill. I believe to be had, the court would define what legal situation, would he then give con
it is a much sounder bill now than it "fraud" meant; what "misconduct" sideration to adding the words “gross
was as it came out of the Foreign Relameant; and what "negligence" means. negligence" or some other phrase or
tions Committee. My understanding is that "negligence” clause which would help—although it
May I say that I am glad that the bill means that a person has failed to do would not necessarily be considered here,
was not referred back to the commitwhat a reasonably prudent person would because we cannot do research work on
tee for further revision. Instead, the have done, or has done what a reasonably it here? I am referring only to the sit
Senate has been operating as a de facto prudent person would not have done un uation based upon checking back on the
Committee of the Whole for the past 3 der the circumstances. That is my Senator's views as to the law. understanding of the definition of Mr. LAUSCHE. I regret to say this; become much better informed about this
weeks. This has enabled each of us to "negligence."
but if we allow the bankers to determine important piece of legislation and also Mr. JAVITS. Does the Senator be
what will be included in the bill, nothing about the entire foreign aid program. lieve that an underwriter would dare to will be in it, for they want to receive And this is a very good thing. One of underwrite or would dare to make a loan the interest, and they want the Govern
the unfortunate dispositions into which with that as the standard in the law, in ment to assume the obligation. But I do
the Senate has fallen is the tendency view of the fact that that is a defense not think the Government should assume
to take too much for granted the judgwhich could be invoked by the United the obligation in cases in which the loss
ment of its committees. I believe that States against anybody? It takes a trial resulted from fraud, misconduct, or
great weight should be given to the coland a jury decision in order to prove it; negligence.
lective judgment of the members of the and the jury decision could go either Mr. JAVITS. Yes; but we want the
committees, because by and large the way. bankers to invest
staffs and the members of the commitMay I give the Senator an example? Mr. LAUSCHE. But they are saying, tees have devoted considerably more Suppose I wish to invest in a housing “We will not invest unless you do as we time to the legislation before them than loan. Suppose I send some operatives to say.” But that does not mean to me that
say." But that does not mean to me that have other Members of the Senate. But investigate, and they fail to look at some we are obligated to follow the course they there are many Members of the Senate bookkeeping analysis or some particular request.
not members of a committee whose backtitle analysis, and I say, “That is not I shall be glad to consider this matter ground and expertise with respect to negligence. My people looked at some at a later date.
some of the problems considered by a other piece of paper, that told them the Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator committee are superior to the knowledge same thing, or they took the word of a from Ohio. I think we have opened up possessed by some of the members of person operating a particular savings the subject.
the committee; and these Members and loan association."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there should be given greater consideration But the U.S. Government replies, “We be no further amendment to be proposed, when they speak out on these problems are sorry, sir, but we do not pay. That the question is on agreeing to the com- and, particularly, when they offer is negligence. It has to go to trial, and mittee amendment, as amended.
amendments to the bills which have been the jury may decide 'Yes' or 'No'."
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I have processed by the committees. Is it not a fact that an underwriter an amendment, although I shall not call For too long now the Foreign Relawho follows the established standard or it up now. But it may become applica- tions Committee has been operating in a
world of its own. I do not say this in the total unliquidated commitments That last reason brings us to the meat criticism of the committee. I say it in amounted to more than $6.3 billion, in of the problem: How long are we to leave criticism of the Senate itself. Too many cluding nearly $4 billion earmarked for
cluding nearly $4 billion earmarked for these funds in the pipeline? Members have been disposed to regard economic assistance programs, $2.3 bil In examining the AID's country-bymatters of foreign relations and foreign lion for military assistance, and some country report on the "status of loan trade as matters beyond the understand- $153 million in the special reserve and agreements," as of June 30, 1963, I find ing and appreciation of the average revolving funds—table A. It should be that there were a total of 127 loan agreeMember of the Senate who is not a mem- noted that of the $4 billion for economic ments into which we had entered into ber of the committee. This disposition assistance, there is the sum of $358 mil- during or before 1960 and of which there has, I fear, lulled us into a false sense lion for supporting assistance. Ninety
lion for supporting assistance. Ninety- still remained unliquidated balances. It of well-being over legislation affecting four countries are listed in this com seems that those funds should be moving, our foreign affairs, and particularly the mitted but unexpended fund pipeline
mitted but unexpended fund pipeline- especially when some go back as far as foreign aid authorization bills into which table B.
1953. On February 6, 1953, we entered policy changes, entirely within the prop I can readily see why there must be into a loan agreement with the Instituto er purview of the Congress, might here- some funds in that pipeline: We should De Acueductos y Alcantarillados Naciotofore have wisely been written.
and must take care of our obligations. nales of Panama for financing a water The result has been an increasing It is my understanding that if the agreed supply and sewerage system. The awareness on the part of the taxpayers, provisions under which an activity is un amount of loan agreement was $6 million. who are paying the bill, that Congress dertaken are not met, if the conditions To date, not one cent of that loan has has not been doing as good a job as it which generated U.S. undertaking of an been made to that Panama institution. should. Thanks to the free press and the activity change materially, or if the final What is the reason for this and for the alertness of some of our Members, the cost of a project is less than originally others? If conditions have not been abuses, waste, and unsound practices provided for, funds may be deobligated met, then those funds should be released which have inexcusably occurred in the and used for some other purpose. I un for other activities. Or are these soconduct of the foreign aid programs have derstand that in fiscal year 1963, about called "small" loans to be piled up inbeen brought home to the people who $30 million in economic assistance funds definitely? sent us here to represent them. Sooner were deobligated and used in the pro
Mr. President, I ask unanimous conor later, the pressure had to build up to gram; this is less than one-half of 1
sent that tables A and B, and a table C a breaking point, and the breaking point percent of the total economic assistance setting forth examples of old loan agreehas occurred this year over this bill. pipeline. I have been told that about $50 ments and amounts disbursed thereunder I do not say that we now have a per- million additional funds were also de
be placed in the RECORD. fect bill. But I do say that we have a obligated, but not used, and as a result,
There being no objection, the tables much better bill than we had 3 weeks will either revert to the Treasury or be
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, ago. And I trust that when it is taken reappropriated by the Congress to meet
as follows: to conference, the Senate conferees will the needs of the fiscal year 1964 pro
TABLE A.–Foreign assistance program (mustand very firm on the amendments gram.
tual security), preliminary June 30, 1963, which have been made. Actually, my AID says that it does not believe that
unliquidated commitments estimate is that the House conferees will a substantial amount of fiscal year 1964
[In thousands of dollars) be most happy to accept most of the funds will remain unobligated at the end
ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE amendments. And I wish to sound a of the fiscal year 1964—and if the Conwarning that the conferees had better
gress continues to cut the foreign aid Budgeted programs: bring back a conference report which program, this could be true.
2, 170, 047 Development loans.. But out
Development grants: contains most of these hard-considered side of that, AID has cited three central
General authorization ----- 353, 987 amendments if it wishes to have the con reasons why there might be some funds Special foreign currency ference report agreed to by the Senate. left unobligated and I believe these
2, 780 The people we represent recognize that reasons are pertinent to the discussions
reasons are pertinent to the discussions Surveys of investment opportuwe have been giving voice to their con- going on now on the Senate floor:
303 cerns and their desires through the
Alliance for Progress:
1. We hope that it would not be necessary adoption of these amendments, and I do to use all of the contingency funds. We will
280, 371 not believe that they will be satisfied at be able to return $117 million of the $250
56, 192 Inter-American program
for all if the opposition to them by non million appropriated for the fiscal year 1963 social progress-
47, 227 elected officials of the State Department contingency fund.
Social Progress Trust Fund.. 335, 000 prevails. It is these officials who are
If this much is to be returned for the
International organizations.-- 133, 985 working for the taxpayers-not vice
358, 139 versa. last fiscal year, then the $175 million we
219,093 The authorization limit has been rehave authorized by amendment for this Administrative expenses, AID--- 7, 736
Administrative expenses, State-
779 duced to some $3.8 billion—a substantial fund would still be excessive.
17, 765 reduction from the $4.2 billion brought 2. The foreign aid program utilizes many out by the Foreign Relations Committee hundreds of accounts. By law, none of these
Total budgeted programs.-- 3,983, 404 and a very substantial reduction over the accounts may be overdrawn. Prudent man$4.9 billion requested by the President in agement requires that we plan to leave small balances in each of these accounts. The sum
MILITARY ASSISTANCE 1 his so-called "frugal budget” presented
2, 263, 500 early this year in the amount of $98.8 of these small balances is a significant amount.
69, 600 billion. It is still some $300 million over the House bill, but only $100 million un3. We will not obligate funds unless re
Total military assistance. 2, 333, 100 der the amount appropriated for the last cipient countries undertake self-help and fiscal year. I see no reason why anyone conditions of other criteria upon which proreform measures, and successfully meet the
Grand total economic and should be concerned over the reduction
military assistance----- 6, 316, 504 made by the Senate. In fact, even with earmark funds for use in a certain activity, Special reserve
vision of U.S. assistance is based. We may this figure I must say I am not entirely contingent on whether the recipient effec
funds: satisfied, because I am greatly concerned tively takes agreed upon steps. If some Acquisition of property--
559 over the committed and unexpended progress is made, but at the end of the fiscal
152, 231 funds currently in the foreign aid pro
year the recipient is not able to successfully gram pipeline. Many taxpayers do not complete the necessary steps, we will not
Total special reserve and know about this, and I believe they should obligate the funds for that activity, and there
revolving funds-------- 152, 790 be made fully aware of it.
will not be sufficient time to prudently under 1 Preliminary June 30, 1963, data not availAccording to the Agency for Interna- take another activity. Thus these funds will able; figures shown represent estimates tional Development, as of June 30, 1963, not be obligated.
shown in budget document.
TABLE B.-Foreign assistance (mutual se
curity) program by countries i (including
JUNE 30, 1963
56.8 Algeria --
44.8 Cameroon --
12.8 Central African Republic..
70.8 China, Republic of
91.0 Congo (Brazzaville)
.9 Congo (Léopoldville)
32.8 Costa Rica -
1.3 Dominican Republic-
30. 2 Ecuador--
33.1 El Salvador
4. 8 Honduras
9.3 Iceland ---
69.9 Ivory Coast_
4. 5 Malagasy Republic---Malaya (fiscal year 1959)
6. 2 Mauritania Mexico--
TABLE B.-Foreign assistance, etc.-Con. TABLE B.-Foreign assistance, etc.-Con. [In millions of dollars]
[In millions of dollars] Unliquidated
Unliquidated Developing countries—Con. balances
53. 5 Europe, Japan, and other developed Nepal..
5.6 countries (all military assistNicaragua
11.9 ance with the exception of $16,Niger--
1.9 700,000 in Spain)-Con.
Total Europe, Japan and other
developed countries----- 635.7 Philippines
Regional and nonregional-Eco-
46.1 Senegal ---
Social progress trust fund-------- 335.0 Sierra Leone_
International organizations----- 109.0 Somali Republic---
Administrative expenses-AID---- 7.7
18.4 Syrian Arab Republic--
18. 2 Tanganyika--
Total regional and nonre-
516.2 Trinidad and Tobago-
Regional, nonregional and adjust-
ments—Military assistance: Uganda
Regional and nonregional-------- 248.4
83.1 Adjustment of undelivered pro-
Total regional, nonregional
Total unliquidated balances.- 6, 316.5 Others-undistributed classified
1 The country amounts are composed of (military)----
267.5 the following:
(1) Economic assistance: Undisbursed auTotal developing countries--- 5, 001.8 thorized loans and unliquidated obligations.
(Preliminary, Aug. 16, 1963.) Europe, Japan, and other developed
(2) Military assistance: Estimated value countries (all military assist
of goods programed but not delivered, since ance with the exception of $16,unpaid obligations/reservations
not 700,000 in Spain):
available by countries. (Congressional presAustralia
2 Less than $50,000. Denmark----
3 This adjustment reduces the total proFrance--
41.1 gramed and undelivered amounts for miliGermany (Berlin)-
tary assistance included in the country bal
ances, as expected in footnote 1(2) above,
to the total estimated unpaid obligations/ Japan.
reservations for military assistance as re
flected in the congressional presentation. New Zealand..
101.0 NOTE.—No new countries are proposed for Portugal
32, 6 aid in fiscal year 1964.
$5,000,000.00 $4, 662, 890.31
Government of Finland: Ship con-
May 22, 1959
May 23, 1959
Apr. 10, 1959 Government of Poland: Commodity assistance
June 10, 1959
June 5, 1959
Nov. 12, 1957
May 22, 1958 Fertilizer plant.
Jan. 8, 1959 Project assistance
Mar. 10, 1959 Commodity assistance
Apr. 14, 1959 Electric power..
Nov. 25, 1959 Hydroelectric power.
Dec. 17, 1959 Zagreb plastics.
Sept. 16, 1960
Industrial Corp.: Sawmill project -- Dec. 16, 1958
June 28, 1957
June 25, 1959
Mar. 16, 1960
June 28, 1957 Commodity and project assistance. July 10, 1958 Commodity assistance.
June 30, 1959 Do.
Mar. 21, 1960
73, 700,000.00 72, 210, 799.03
7,359, 493. 55
Credito Somalo (Somalia): Develop-
Mar. 31, 1959
May 22, 1959
lulose (Tunisia): Pulp factory- May 13, 1959
Tunisians (Tunisia): National rail-
May 27, 1959
Oct. 11, 1960
Sept. 3, 1958
Mar. 25, 1959
Sept. 23, 1959
Jan. 28, 1959
Jan. 29, 1960
Oct. 10, 1958
Bank of Iran: Development Bank.- Nov. 19, 1959
Aug. 25, 1958
Dec. 17, 1958
May 12, 1959
12,000,000.00 11, 790,884.94 31,000,000.00 5,047, 597. 59 2,500,000.00 2, 444, 008.35 5, 200,000.00 1,573, 145. 37 3,600,000.00 2, 114, 425.32 18, 872,000.00 16, 697, 816.67 10,000,000.00 8, 328, 002.09
23,000,000.00 5, 158, 208.94