A change of emphasis and perspective of this kind which would place what has been a fringe activity into the center of AID's policy is not easy to achieve. It would probably require some drastic changes of organization and above all of procedures. Perhaps what is needed in the first instance is a committee composed chiefly of officers of AID, but including some outsiders from some of the other Government agencies in Washington as well as from both private business and other nongovernmental organizations such as some of the foundations to consider what changes of organization and procedure would help to increase rapidly the effective encouragement encouragement which AID can give both to the employment of United States and international nongovernmental institutions and enterprises for foreign aid on a large and increasing scale, as well as to the development and creation of such institutions and enterprises among people abroad receiving foreign aid.

It may not be necessary, Mr. President, to establish another committee. One of the problems is that we already have too many committees, and that we take too long to do what needs to be done. But the proposal itself, and others like it, is worth considering.

It should be clear by now to all concerned that some basic changes are going to have to be made in the foreign aid program in the very near future. One of the changes most urgently needed is the increased use of non-Government agencies, together with greater use by AID of other Government agencies and departments.

This was the purpose of the Humphrey amendment to the new Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which was adopted and became part of section 621 of the act. My amendment, which I called the technical-services-for-peace amend

ment read as follows:

In providing technical assistance under this act in the field of education, health, housing, or agriculture the head of any such agency or such officer shall utilize, to the fullest extent practicable, the facilities and resources of the Federal agency or agencies with primary responsibilities for domestic programs in such field.

The Humphrey amendment called upon AID to utilize other agencies to the "fullest extent practicable" in carrying out the foreign aid program. My objective, as I said at the time, was to enlist the best personnel and the finest facilities available, not just in the U.S. Government itself, but in the entire country, in effectuating the purposes of the foreign aid program.

Rather than enlisting new personnel and building up a large new body of public servants, the foreign aid agency under my amendment, was directed to rely as much as possible on the expertise and staffs of the existing departments and agencies of the Government which had already developed competence in particular fields. For example, the Department of Agriculture has more competence in the field of conservation, land reform, and certain areas of agricultural redevelopment than any group of people that we could bring quickly into the agency. Therefore we should call upon

the Department and use its personnel facilities to the maximum extent practicable.

Another example is the Department of the Interior, which has specialists in the Interior, which has specialists in many fields related to the economic development of the less-developed countries, such as erosion control, reclamation, and irrigation.

The U.S. Public Health Service is another example. It has the confidence of the American medical profession, and long experience with medical fields of long experience with medical fields of importance to the less-developed counimportance to the less-developed countries. Under my amendment the foreign tries. Under my amendment the foreign aid agency was directed to utilize the Public Health Service, including the National Institutes of Health, in carrying out vital programs in the international out vital programs in the international health field, which is so closely related health field, which is so closely related to the goals of our foreign policy and of our foreign aid program.

In offering the amendment I did not intend to reduce the foreign aid agency to the status of a contracting office. The foreign aid program has to be operated under the direction of the Secretary of State and under the direct adtary of State and under the direct administration of the Administrator of AID. Nor was I proposing the establishAID. Nor was I proposing the establishment of separate foreign aid offices by any of the other departments or agencies of Government. My proposal was made with the recognition that all formade with the recognition that all foreign aid activities of other Government eign aid activities of other Government agencies and departments should be conducted under the supervision and direction of the Department of State and the Agency for International Development.

In short, Mr. President, the Humphrey amendment of 1961 was designed to strengthen AID both by enabling the strengthen AID both by enabling the Agency to maintain as small a staff as possible, and to provide maximum resources for the foreign assistance program by making use of all available talent and facilities in the Government and throughout the country.

Section 621 has now been amended by

the Senate to read as follows:

In providing technical assistance under

this Act, the head of any such agency or such officer shall utilize, to the fullest extent practicable, goods and professional and other services from private enterprise on a contract basis. In such fields as education, health, housing, or agriculture, the facilities and resources of other Federal agencies shall be utilized when such facilities are particularly or uniquely suitable for technical assistance, are not competitive with private enterprise, and can be made available without interfering unduly with domestic programs.

I supported this additional language to my amendment of 1961 in order to make it crystal clear that Congress wants the foreign aid agency to make greater use of other Government agencies and of all available U.S. public groups and organizations in carrying out the foreign aid program.

As changes and improvements in the foreign aid program are considered, Mr. President, ways of implementing the desire of Congress to have greater use made of the full resources of the Government and of the great public organizations and private groups of this country must be given top priority.

It is essential for more of the foreign aid program to be carried out on contract with public and private groups and

organizations organizations and on a reimbursable basis by other Government agencies. The Agency for International Development itself must become less of a line agency and more of a staff agency if the foreign aid program is going to become a more effective expression of American ideals and goals, and a better vehicle for applying American skills and knowledge to the problems faced by the less-developed countries.

This has been a long and difficult debate. It has produced mixed results, in my opinion, but I hope the final result will be a better foreign aid program.

There has been a great deal of criticism during the past 3 weeks. By and large this has been useful and constructive, as I am sure it was meant to be. I know that it will be received in a constructive manner by those responsible for administering the program.

But debate in the Senate is something like a family argument-it may give a misleading impression about the true state of affairs. Listening to the debates one might wonder how committed the Senate is, not just to the present foreign aid program, but to the whole concept of foreign aid. For this reason, I think it is important to end our deliberations with a clear affirmation.

Let it be made clear to all the world that the United States does not intend to abandon its foreign aid program.

The United States is deeply committed to the development of a free and prosperous community of nations.

The United States has supported foreign aid for 15 years as a vital instrument for bringing into being this free community of nations.

Let there also be no misunderstanding of the meaning of this debate in the Senate.

The Senate wants the foreign aid program to be improved, to be sharpened, to is not turning its back on the foreign aid be made more effective; but the Senate program. The Senate is attempting to criticize constructively, not for the purpose of tearing down, but in order to build a program which will better serve the great principles of freedom and progress for which it stands.

This, the building of a better foreign aid program, is the task before us as we turn from the mistakes and the achievements of the past to the challenge of the future. The critics have had their day. Now let us, critics and all, reaffirm our support for foreign aid, and unite in our determination to make it work.

Mr. President, I have a memorandum from the acting chief of staff of the Foreign Relations Committee setting forth the major amendments to the foreign aid bill-S. 1276—which were adopted by the Committee on Foreign Relations.

In addition to these amendments made by the by the committee, of course, other amendments have been adopted during debate on the floor.

The memorandum provides ample evidence of the great amount of care and attention given the foreign aid bill by the Committee on Foreign Relations. It also is a useful compendium of the action taken by the committee on policy questions affecting the foreign aid program.

I ask unanimous consent that the memorandum be printed at this point in the RECORD.

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

MEMORANDUM TO SENATOR HUMPHREY FROM PAT HOLT

Set forth below are the major amendments to the administration's foreign aid bill (S. 1276) which were adopted by the Committee on Foreign Relations.

1. The following new paragraph was added to the statement of policy:

"It is the sense of the Congress that assistance authorized by this act should be extended to or withheld from the Government of South Vietnam, in the discretion of the President, to further the objectives of victory in the war against communism and the return to their homeland of Americans involved in that struggle."

The committee report states (p. 8):

"This new paragraph reflects the committee's conviction that stabilization of the political situation in Vietnam is of the utmost importance for winning the war against the Communist guerrillas. The committee takes note of the fact that there is still pending before it Senate Resolution 196 calling for discontinuance of aid to South Vietnam unless the Vietnamese Government puts needed reforms into effect. If the political situation in South Vietnam deteriorates further to the detriment of the war effort, the committee will be disposed to give further consideration to the more drastic steps called for by Senate Resolution 196."

2. A new subsection was added to section 201, relating to the Development Loan Fund, which reads as follows:

"No assistance shall be furnished under this title unless the President determines that the project for which such assistance is requested is taken into account in the economic development of the requesting country, including an analysis of current human and material resources, together with a projection of the ultimate objectives of the country, and specifically provides for appropriate participation by private enterprise."

According to the committee report (p. 8): "The amendment is designed to insure that the projects for which development loans are made are directly relevant to economic development, and especially that such projects can be supported by the borrowing country's available human and material resources. The committee hopes through this amendment to avoid situations in which loans are made for projects beyond the technical and managerial capacities of the borrowing country.

"It is also the intention of this amendment to encourage the greatest feasible participation of private enterprise in such projects, where appropriate."

3. A new subsection (b) was added to section 241, relating to development research, which reads as follows:

"Funds made available to carry out this section may be used to conduct research into the problems of controlling population growth and to provide technical and other assistance to cooperating countries in carrying out programs of population control."

The committee report (p. 14) states: "Because of the profound impact of population growth on economic development, the committee considers it appropriate to provide explicit authority for the conduct of research and technical assistance activities in this field. It is the view of the committee that population growth must be regarded as a critical factor in the development prospects of countries which receive development assistance from the United States."

"No less than general education and technical, administrative, and managerial com

petence, the capacity of a country to maintain a reasonable balance between popula

tion and resources is a vital factor in its

prospects for successful economic development. It is a well-known fact that in many less-developed countries rapid population growth has substantially or entirely negated the benefits of U.S. economic assistance. Even in some countries where economic growth has been impressive, per capita income levels have remained virtually stagnant as a result of mushrooming increases in population.

"Substantial progress has been made in recent years in defining the preconditions of economic growth. To a great extent our economic assistance has been refocused on those countries which have largely fulfilled these preconditions. The one vital criterion of successful development which has been neglected is that of population control. purpose of the committee's amendment to title V of the act is to encourage research into appropriate measures to correct this omission."

4. With regard to your amendment relating to aid to Latin American cooperatives, the committee report (p. 17) states follows:

"The committee has long been impressed with the constructive role which cooperatives can play, not only in promoting economic growth, but also in contributing to the democratic development contemplated by the Alliance for Progress. In order to give special emphasis to the importance which the committee assigns to the role of cooperatives, special provision is made in this bill for the use of certain foreign currencies available to the United States in Latin America to assist the cooperative movement.

"First, a new subsection is added to section 251 of the act, which contains the general authority for the Alliance for Progress. This new subsection provides that the President 'shall, when appropriate, assist in promoting the organization, implementation implementation and growth of the cooperative movement in Latin America as a fundamental measure toward the strengthening of democratic institutions and practices and economic and social development under the Alliance for Progress.'

"Second, a new provision is inserted in section 253 of the act, which relates to Alliance for Progress fiscal provisions, to make foreign currencies available for this purpose. The foreign currencies involved are those which have accrued as a result of loans which are repayable in foreign currencies. Most of these loans were made by the development loan fund between 1958 and 1961. Since the latter date, all development loans have been repayable in dollars. However, as a result of earlier development loans, the United States now has about $7 million in

Latin American currencies. This amount is expected to increase, as a result of repayments, to about $60 million over the next 5 years. The President is authorized to reserve up to $25 million of these currencies in any fiscal year for loans to cooperatives. These funds will be available for this purpose without regard to section 612 of the act, or of any other act which makes foreign currencies available only as specified in appropriation acts.

"The foreign currencies to which this amendment applies can be used not only for loans to individual cooperatives but also to provide seed capital, should that prove desirable, to a central inter-American cooperative finance institution for relending."

5. A new section 254 was added to title VI, relating to the Alliance for Progress, which reads as follows:

"RESTRICTIONS ON ASSISTANCE.-None of the funds made available under authority of this Act may be used to furnish assistance to any country covered by this title in which the government has come to power

through the forcible overthrow of a prior government which has been chosen in free and democratic elections unless the President

determines that withholding such assistance would be contrary to the national in

The committee's comments on this amendment (pp. 17-18) are as follows:

"The committee has been gravely concerned over the number of elected governments in Latin America which have been overthrown by force in recent months.

"The forcible overthrow of duly elected governments is a step entirely out of harmony with the principles of the inter-American system and of the Alliance for Progress. It is difficult to see how the economic and social goals of the Alliance can be achieved in the face of such political instability. Thus, assistance furnished to irregular governments is unlikely to accomplish the purposes of the Alliance for Progress.

"Furthermore, such assistance may very well encourage ambitious militaristic forces elsewhere in the hemisphere to believe that they too can carry out coups d'etat with impunity and continue to receive American aid and otherwise to participate in the Alliance for Progress. It is important that vigorous steps be taken to dispel this dangerous delusion. The Alliance for Progress is threatened from both left and right in Latin America. The United States has gone to considerable lengths to protect the Alliance from the threat from the left represented by Castroite subversion and infiltration. It is equally important that the Alliance be protected from the threat from the right represented by the forces of the ultraconservative traditional oligarchies.

"Finally, there is at stake here the credibility of the United States, whose ambassadors, speaking for this Government, have repeatedly warned Latin American military

leaders that the United States would look with disapproval on the overthrow of constitutional governments. If our word is to be believed in the future, we must follow through on these warnings by concrete steps to express disapproval."

"For these reasons, the committee has adopted an amendment which prohibits any assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act to any country in the Alliance for Progress "in which the government has come to power through the forcible overthrow of a prior government which has been chosen in free and democratic elections.' There is an exception to this prohibition in cases in which the President determines that withholding assistance would be contrary to the national interest. This exception is included because the committee believes that the President should have flexibility in utilizing the foreign aid program as an instrument of American foreign policy. It is also included because, although the committee strongly disapproves of the overthrow of constitutional governments, the committee does not consider itself wise enough to foresee clearly every situation which may arise in the future."

6. The committee reduced from $57.5 to $50 million the limitation in the existing law (sec. 511(a)) on the total value of grant programs of defense articles for the American Republics. In addition, the committee bill authorizes the use of $25 million to this amount for assistance to an international military force under the control of the Organization of American States.

The committee report states:

"Both of these changes are a reflection of the committee's growing concern over the scope and nature of the military assistance program in Latin America. In the past, the committee has sought to encourage the formation of an OAS military force which could perform peacekeeping functions in the hemisphere. The committee is aware of the problems involved in the organization of such a force, but it is disappointed that the

officials with responsibility in this area have not shown as much ingenuity in finding ways to bring such a force into being as they have in finding reasons why the proposal is impractical."

7. The committee adopted an amendment to section 601, relating to the encouragement of free enterprise and private participation, which directs the President to take appropriate steps to discourage nationalization, etc., of private investment and discriminatory or other actions which might impair the climate for new private investment.

The committee report (p. 27) states as follows:

"The main point involved here is that, aside from legal problems and questions of compensation, nationalization is unwise from a purely economic point of view if it diverts resources from other more productive purposes and if it results in discouragement of new private investment. The question of compensation for nationalized property is not directly related to this limited point and is dealt with in section 620 (e) of the act.

"The law already contains many provisions emphasizing that the foreign assistance program should be administered as far as possible through normal commercial channels of trade and through private facilities. This is not only in keeping with traditional American methods, but as a general rule is both cheaper and more efficient. Particularly in the field of major engineering services, the committee hopes that AID will avail itself more of the services of private firms and will not try to build up its own engineering staff to the degree that would be required if all of AID's engineering work were done by AID personnel."

8. The committee amended section 612, which relates to the use of foreign currencies, to make these currencies available, in certain cases, for sale to U.S. citizens for travel or other purposes.

The committee report (p. 28) explains this amendment as follows:

"Foreign currencies accruing under Public Law 480 are already available for sale to American tourists under the provisions of section 104(s) of that law in appropriate circumstances. The amendment in this bill to section 612 of the Foreign Assistance Act will also make available foreign currencies accruing as a result of the foreign aid program. These foreign assistance currencies will be available, not only for tourists, but for other uses by U.S. citizens.

"The amendment applies only to those foreign currencies which are in excess of the needs of the U.S. Government and which are not prohibited from sale to U.S. citizens or committed to other uses by prior agreements with the other country concerned. The dollars received from the sale of these

currencies will be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

"To the extent that excess foreign currencies can be sold to U.S. citizens for dollars, to pay for the foreign travel or other activities of those citizens, the balance-ofpayments position of the United States will be improved. This is the purpose of this amendment."

9. The committee approved an amendment to section 620 (a) which prohibits assistance to the present Government of Cuba and to any country furnishing assistance to that Government.

The committee report (pp. 28-29) explains the new language as follows:

"The main purpose of the bill's amendment to section 620 (a) is to deal with the problem of free world shipping in the Cuban trade. The bill prohibits assistance (except under sec. 214) to any country which, by failing to take such steps as are appropriate, permits ships or aircraft under its registry to carry to or from Cuba any military personnel, or any items of primary strategic signifi

cance, the shipment of which is embargoed to the Communist bloc under title I of the Battle Act.

"Assistance is also prohibited if the country concerned, through failure to take appropriate steps, permits the carriage of any other equipment, materials, or commodities to or from Cuba, unless the President determines that the furnishing of assistance is important to the security of the United States and reports such determination to the Foreign Relations and Appropriations Committees of the Senate and the Speaker of the House.

"Countries receiving assistance have 60 days after the enactment of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1963 to take appropriate steps. The prohibition applies so long as Cuba is governed by the Castro regime or any other Communist regime, and the prohibitions may not be waived pursuant to any other authority or law. In the case of nonstrategic materials, the prohibition does not apply with respect to the fulfillment of firm commitments made by the United States prior to the date this bill becomes law. Neither does the prohibition apply to military sales which are made by the United States under the Foreign Assistance Act. These sales, mainly to Western Europe, amount to about $1 billion a year, and are an important plus factor in the U.S. balance of payments.

"The committee regards this amendment as another step to isolate further the Castro regime in Cuba. Substantial progress has been made in this direction, but the committee is disappointed that a few countries continue to receive assistance from the United States while their ships continue to carry goods to and from Cuba, thereby lightening the burden which Cuba represents to the Soviet Union and contributing to the sustenance of the Castro regime."

10. The committee made several changes in the Hickenlooper amendment (sec. 620 (e)) which requires suspension of assistance in cases where American property has been expropriated without prompt and adequate compensation.

The committe report (pp. 29-30) explains these changes as follows:

"The existing law covers not only nationalization, expropriation, and seizure of ownership or control, but also discriminatory taxes, other exactions, and 'restrictive maintenance or operational conditions, which have the effect of nationalization, expropriation, or seizure of control. This is broadened to include 'other actions' having the same effect.

"The committee has added the phrase 'other actions' because it has been concerned over recurring reports of actions which certain governments are either proposing or initiating and which can perhaps best be described as creeping expropriation. These ly high taxes which are perhaps not disother actions include, for example, unusualcriminatory in a technical sense but which

are tantamount to confiscation or which at least raise a serious question of their confiscatory effect. The committee intends for confiscation to be construed broadly and not in a narrow technical sense.

"The committee has also been concerned about the attitude which certain foreign governments have taken toward existing contracts with American American companies, even though these contracts may have been negotiated several years ago in good faith by an eariler regime. To meet this problem the committee has added a new subparagraph which brings section 620(e) into play whenever a foreign government has taken steps to repudiate or nullify existing contracts or agreements with any United States citizen or any corporation, partnership, or association not less than 50 per centum beneficially owned by the United States citizens'."

"Under the existing law, assistance is suspended when a country which has taken the actions described in the preceding para

graphs fails to provide 'equitable and speedy compensation for such property in convertible foreign exchange.' This is changed so as to require 'speedy compensation for such property in convertible foreign exchange, equivalent to the full value thereof.'

"The bill also adds a provision which authorizes the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, upon request of the President, to evaluate property which has been expropriated or subjected to other discriminatory actions and to make an advisory report to the President. The Commission is to act within 90 days of the President's request. Its advisory report is to be made available to the owner of the property, but is not to be otherwise published unless authorized by the President. Appropriations, as may be necessary, are authorized to enable the Commission to carry out this new function.

"In view of the injection of the Commission into the process, the provisions of the present law relating to the deadline for suspension of assistance are amended. The deadline is now 6 months after the expropriation or other discriminatory action. The bill retains this deadline, but provides that, in case the matter is referred to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, the deadline is to be 20 days after the report of the Commission is received. If the President does refer the matter to the Commission, he must do so soon enough so that the matter can be settled within the overall 6month time limit.

Finally, the existing law provides only for the termination of assistance furnished under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. The committee bill provides also for the termination of assistance under any other act, in the circumstances described by section 620 (e). This would extend the sanctions of the section to such activities and agencies as Public Law 480, the Export-Import Bank, and the Peace Corps.

"The committee has been gratified by the experience under section 620 (e) since it was made a part of the law last year. At least one major expropriation case has been settled which, in the committee's judgment, probably would not have been settled in the absence of section 620 (e). Several other expropriations or discriminatory actions have been avoided. In only one case has the section operated to suspend assistance.

"The revisions which the committee now proposes tighten the existing law somewhat, broaden its provisions, and provide the President, in his discretion, with the resources and experience of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission."

11. The committee added a new subsection to section 620 which provides:

"No assistance shall be furnished on a

grant basis under this Act to any economically developed nation capable of sustaining its own defense burden and economic growth, except (1) to fulfill firm commitments made prior to July 1, 1963, or (2) additional orientation and training expenses under paragraph II hereof during fiscal year 1964 in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000."

The committee report (p. 30) states as follows:

"Grant assistance to developed countries has been substantially reduced and in many cases eliminated, but the process has not gone as fast as the committee thinks it should. The committee recognizes, however, that there are some cases of prior commitments, mainly in regard to military assistance, which have not yet been entirely fulfilled. These include, among others, a military assistance cost-sharing agreement with Norway.

"The committee also recognizes the value of limited military orientation and training programs for officers of developed countries. These programs are an important factor in sales of military equipment amounting to approximately $1 billion a year, and are in

reality a 'business expense' of the Defense Department. The amendment makes an exception for programs of this nature. Further, it will not preclude financing of military training and orientation courses by the Defense Department under other appropriations if considered desirable and possible.

"The question arises as to what is an 'economically developed nation capable of sustaining its own defense burden and economic growth.' The committee believes this to be a matter of reasonable judgment. The amendment is intended to cover the countries of Western Europe, among others.

"In view of the specific U.S. base rights in Spain and Portugal the committee does not intend this amendment to apply to these two countries. However, the committee is strongly of the view that the United States has been generous in its grants-in-aid to Spain and Portugal and that in the future these programs should be progressively reduced with a view toward termination.

"Neither does the committee intend the amendment to apply to NATO cooperative enterprises involving the furnishing of military and technological information, licenses of Government owned or controlled inventions, and liaison by members of the Armed Forces."

12. The committee also added a new subsection to section 620 which provides:

"No assistance under this Act shall be furnished for projects establishing or otherwise assisting Government-owned manufacturing, utility, merchandising, or processing enterprises in any country or area, except where it clearly appears that goods or services of the same general class are not or cannot be adequately provided by private businesses 10cated within such country or area."

The committee report (pp. 31-32) states that the committee agrees with the conclusion of the Clay Committee that the United States should not aid a free government in establishing government-owned industrial and commercial enterprises which compete wtih existing private endeavors. The committee report adds:

"At the same time, the committee realizes that there are instances in which needed goods or services either are not or cannot be adequately provided by private businesses. In such instances, it may be appropriate to assist in the establishment of governmentowned enterprises. The question of what is 'adequate' is a matter of judgment and will have to be determined in individual cases by the responsible officials of the executive branch. The committee intends the word to be construed so as to promote the most efficient use of limited resources for investment in projects designed to contribute to economic growth. The committee notes in addition that relatively little assistance has in fact been extended by AID to government owned enterprises competing with private firms, but the committee felt it desirable to make certain as nearly as possible that this does not occur in the future."

13. The committee adopted an amendment relating to interest rates on loans which is explained in the report (pp. 34-35) as follows:

"The committee bill contains an amendment which fixes minimum terms for loans made under part I, which deals with economic assistance. The existing law leaves the question of these terms to the discretion of the President, and under current practice the softest terms are three-fourths of 1 percent interest and a maximum maturity of 40 years, with a grace period of 10 years as to repayment of principal.

"Under the terms of the amendment adopted by the committee the minimum interest rate will be three-fourths of 1 percent for the first 5 years and 2 percent thereafter. "The grace period on repayment of principal will be reduced to 5 years from the date

of disbursement, and repayment on an amortized basis will be required within 30 years after the grace period. Loans which may be made to the International Development Association under authority of section 205 are exempt from these new terms.

"Although the amendment adopted by the committee represents a substantial hardening of loan terms compared to current U.S. practice, the terms required by the committee amendment are still substantially softer than those offered by any other free world capital exporting country. This was one of the reasons which led the committee to adopt the amendment. The committee is encouraged by recent moves on the part of some Western European countries, particularly the United Kingdom, to reduce interest rates and lengthen maturity. The executive branch should take every opportunity to urge our European friends to do even more in this respect.

"Another reason the committee adopted this amendment is that it felt it could no longer justify three-fourths of 1 percent, 40year loans in view of the U.S. budgetary and balance-of-payments position. The higher interest rates and shorter maturity required by this amendment will serve to reduce the long-term cost of the foreign aid program to the United States.

"It should be made clear that the terms fixed in this amendment are minimum terms. In cases in which the borrowing country's capacity to repay permits, loan terms should be more realistic and should more nearly reflect, insofar as possible, the actual cost of the loan to the United States. Furthermore, the committee expects the executive branch to include renegotiation provisions in loan agreements so that interest rates may be raised as the economy of the borrowing country improves.

"Historically, U.S. aid policy has evolved from a program of almost all grants through a program of soft loans repayable in foreign currencies into a program of dollar repayable loans. The amendment made by this section will carry this evolution a step further."

14. The committee approved an amendment to section 635, relating to general authorities, which provides:

"(1) No loan or grant in excess of $100,000,000, and no agreement obligating or committing the United States to make a loan financing of any particular project shall be or grant in excess of $100,000,000, for the made or entered into under part I unless such loan, grant or commitment shall have been specifically submitted to the Congress and specifically approved by Congress."

The committee report (p. 36) states: "This amendment is designed to assure advance congressional review of these large projects.

"There are not, in fact, many individual projects of this magnitude. Where one is seriously proposed, its magnitude alone would indicate the most careful review in which Congress should specifically participate.

"It should be emphasized that the amendment applies only to individual projects. It does not apply to programs. The distinction is that the program in a country might embrace a number of individual projects, each of which would be less than $100 million although collectively they might total substantially in excess of that amount.

"Neither would the amendment apply to individual projects which are financed by an international consortium if the U.S. share of the financing is less than $100 million, even though the total cost of the project is in excess of that."

15. The committee adopted an amendment to include fish products within the definition of a "surplus agricultural commodity."

The committee report (p. 41) reads as follows:

"The committee adopted an amendment to section 106 of Public Law 480 (the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954) to make it possible to include fish in the food-for-peace program upon a finding by the Secretary of the Interior that a domestically produced fishery product is in excess of domestic requirements, adequate carryover, and anticipated exports for dollars. The amendment applies only to titles I and IV of Public Law 480, and will therefore not make fish available for grant programs under title II. For purposes of title I, which authorizes sales for foreign currencies, the amendment will become effective January 1, 1965.

"There have been occasions when foreign governments have asked for canned fish products under the food-for-peace program to supply protein deficiencies. This amendment will make it possible to meet these requests to the extent that fishery products may be in surplus. The amendment will put fish on the same basis as frozen beef, canned pork, canned hams, variety meats, and fruit.

"The effective date for purposes of title I is postponed until January 1, 1965, because the present authority under title I extends through December 31, 1964, and was intended to include only surplus agricultural products at the time it was enacted."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. CARLSON (when his name was called). I have a live pair with the senior Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA). If he were present and voting, he would vote "nay." If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "yea." I therefore withhold my vote.

Mr. JOHNSTON (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MCGOVERN]. If he were present and voting, he would vote "yea." If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "nay." I withhold my vote.

Mr. LONG of Missouri (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG]. If he were present and voting, he would vote "nay." If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "yea." I withhold my vote.

Mr. TALMADGE (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the senior Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH]. If he were present and voting, he would vote "yea." If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "nay." I therefore withhold my vote.

Mr. WALTERS (when his name was called). On this vote I have a pair with the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER). If he were present and voting, he would vote "nay." If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "yea." I therefore withhold my vote.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota (when his name was called). I have a pair with the junior Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON]. If he were present and voting, he would vote "yea." If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote "nay." I withhold my vote.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER], the Senator from Washington [Mr. JACKSON], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. McGovERN], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss], and the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] are absent on official business.

I also announce that the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent because of illness.

I further announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] is necessarily absent.

On this vote, the Senator from Utah [Mr. Moss] is paired with the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS]. If present and voting, the Senator from Utah would vote "yea," and the Senator from Mississippi would vote "nay."

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from California [Mr. ENGLE] and the and the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] would each vote "yea."

Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the Senators from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS and Mr. HRUSKA] are absent on official business.

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON] and the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] are necessarily absent.

The pair of the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA] has been previously announced.

On this vote, the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MORTON] is paired with the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. CURTIS]. If present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky would vote "yea," and the Senator from Nebraska would vote "nay." The result was announced-yeas 63, nays 17, as follows:

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be authorized, in the engrossment of the Senate amendment to H.R. 7885, to make certain technical changes, correct any grammatical errors, and make changes in section numbers.

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

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed showing the Senate amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its amendment and request a conference with the House of Representatives thereon, and that the Chair appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. FULBRIGHT, Mr. SPARKMAN, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. HICKENLOOPER, and Mr. AIKEN Conferees on the part of the Senate.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I should like to ask the majority leader about the schedule for the remainder of the day, and also for next week.

ORDER FOR RECESS TO MONDAY NEXT

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, in response to the question raised by my distinguished friend, the minority leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate recesses today, it recess to meet at 12 o'clock noon, Monday next.

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

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Calendar No. 621, S. 1561, be laid before the Senate and made the pending business. It is anticipated that it will pass very shortly. I understand there is no objection to it.

Then we shall take up Calendar No. 609, H.R. 7431, the District of Columbia appropriations bill, which will be the pending business, to be considered on Monday.

There will be no further votes today. So far as the remainder of the schedule is concerned, on Monday it is expected that the District of Columbia appropriation bill will be followed by Calendar No. 614, H.R. 6001, the Waukegan bill; Calendar No. 617, S. 298, and Calendar No. 618, S. 1309, the small business bills; also the braceros bill; the conference report on the legislative appropriations bill; H.R. 8747, the independent offices appropriation bill; and the air pollution bills H.R. 6001 and S. 432.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, on October 31, the House approved a 1-year extension of the Mexican farm labor bill. The House version eliminates the language which was adopted when the Senate passed on this legislation on August 15. The bill which passed the Senate provided minimal protection for American migrant workers. It is my understanding that Senators who opposed the reforms which were included in the Senate bill will move to bypass taking this measure to conference, and plan to move to have the Senate concur with the House language when that bill is brought up before the Senate on Monday.

It is my opinion that the bill should go to conference. In the course of the consideration of the proposed legislation in August, 2 or 3 days were spent in debate. Three or four yea-and-nay votes were held on the question of whether American migrant workers were to receive the same protection under the law that the Mexican farm laborers are afforded. The Senate, by a single vote, after long debate and a series of yeaand-nay votes, determined that these protections should be written into the law.

It will be argued, of course, that because the majority was a simple one of one vote, it is more or less meaningless, and, secondly, that we should surrender to the House of Representatives, I assume, if we do have a conference, even before the conferees reach the rotunda. At least this would have been a test by way of representing the Senate's position in a contest with the House.

The proposal will be made that we not even go to conference and attempt some kind of accommodation or reconciliation. In my opinion, the appropriate procedure in handling this measure, involving a significant difference between the House and Senate versions, is to hold a conference.

In the course of the debate on the

Those bills will be brought up next week, but not necessarily in that se

measures which have recently been before the Senate, the argument has been strongly made that the House position